Case ID: johns_3/html/0442-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ross against Vaughan.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1808.
    The rule adopcauses'2fo'^be brought to trial at the sittings in Neio-Tari, made ^tQ1* appear that the have6 been^triéd, had it been noticed, it shall excuse ñmn^stipuMing to bring it next court, or be nonsuited, is not applica.hie to causes at ^
    FOOT, for the defendant,
    moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit, on the usual affidavit.
    Skinner, contra,
    read an affidavit, stating that the cause'was not noticed for trial at the last circuit in . . , Essex county, because the attorney, knowing that many causes of an elder issue were actually noticed, and that much business was to come before the oyer and terminer, to be held at the same circuit, did not believe that tke cause could be tried. It appeared, that but one civil cause was, m fact, tried at the circuit, for want of time. these grounds, he contended that the plaintiff was not bound to stipulate.
   Per Curiam.

A rule has been adopted in regard to causes tried at the sittings in New-Tork. that where it is "made to appear, that the cause could not have been tried, had it been noticed for trial, the plaintiff, on a motion for a nonsuit, shall be excused from stipulating ; but this rule was not intended to be applied to causes "at th,e' country circuits, where the reason for it can seldom exist. The plaintiff must stipulate or be nonsuited.

Rule granted.