Case ID: va_7/html/0495-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CUR.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Mandeville v. Mandeville.
    [Friday, May 7th, 1802.]
    Office-Judgment — When Trial May Be Had. — The defendant may be be ruled to trial in the County Court at the first term after the office-:udgment.
    Randolph, for the appellant.
    The cause ought not to have been tried, without consent, at the first term after the office-judgment; for, the act of Assembly directs, that the same practice shall be observed in the County Courts, as in the District Courts, where the rule is to postpone the trial till the next term. But, there is no consent stated here, and, therefore, the judgment is erroneous.
    Wickham, contra.
    The law does not forbid the trial at the first Court. Por, the act directs, that it should be immediately put at the end of the issue docket, R. C. 95; and then it must, necessarily, stand ready for trial, if the Court reach it. Besides, as there is no exception to the trial, the presumption is, that it was had by consent.
    
      
       See monographic note on “.Judgments” appended to Smith v. Charlton, 7 Gratt. 425.
    
   PER CUR.

Affirm the judgment.