Case Name: BENNETT v. BENNETT
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1829-11
Citations: 3 F. Cas. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENNETT v. BENNETT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 3
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
Case No. 1,317.
BENNETT v. BENNETT.
[3 Cranch, C. C. 647.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Nov. Term, 1829.
Trial — Continuance—Demand op Securitt fob Costs.
A notice given at the trial term in Alexandria, that security for costs will be required, is no ground for postponing the trial.
[See Hawkins v. Willbank, Case No. 6,247.]
Mr. Neale, for the defendant,
[James H. Bennett,] now, at the trial term, gave notice to the plaintiff [Bennett’s Executor] that he should require security for costs.
Mr. Taylor objected that this notice ought not to delay the trial; the defendant having obtained continuances of the cause, and not having given a previous notice, according to the act of Virginia, p. Ill, § 23.
Mr. Lee, the clerk, stated that the practice of the court was not to delay trial when the notice was not given before the trial term.

Opinion:
THE COURT
(nem. con.) refused to delay the trial. Verdict for the defendant.