Case ID: lock-rev-cas_1/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith and others v. White, 7 Hill, 520.
    In S. Ct. 4 Hill, 166.
    
      Abatement; Practice; Discontinuance; Costs; Pleading,
    
    Plea in abatement of another suit depending.
    A suit was commenced by the plaintiff below against the defendant in error, and discontinued before his attorney received notice of retainer from defendant’s attorney, the plaintiff’s attorney having duly entered his rule for discontinuance of the suit: a new suit was then commenced, to which the above plea was interposed.
   The Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to his costs, at the time of the notice of retainer served, notwithstanding the previous discontinuance of the suit, by entry of the rule, as the defendant’s attorney was retained, and gave notice of retainer without actual notice of discontinuance of suit; and therefore the plea in abatement was held good.

The Court of Errors held that the defendants not having appeared in the first suit, were not entitled to costs, and that the rule for discontinuance which was replied, was a good answer to the plea of another suit pending.

But that it would have been otherwise had the defendants appeared in the first suit before the rule for discontinuance was entered.

Judgment reversed, 15 to 4.