Case Name: HARMON vs. HANDLIN
Court: Tennessee Superior Court of Law and Equity
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1809-05
Citations: 1 Overt. 434
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARMON vs. HANDLIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 434–434

Head Matter:
HARMON vs. HANDLIN.
At the last term an entry was made to the following effect: “ declaration filed and admitted by consent, time to plead, or demur so as not to delay trial." This entry was made without application to the court. A demurrer was filed during this term; and it was now moved, that the demurrer should be argued, so that if overruled, a writ of inquiry might be executed this term.
If time be given by consent “to plead or demur, so as not to delay trial,” quere, whether the demurer can be argued, and a writ of enquiry executed at the next term, the demurrer being then filed.

Opinion:
Overton j.
Agreements ought to be with the approbation of the court, and this agreement so far as respected the giving of time to demur, should not have been allowed. Instances may be found in the books, where parties have been allowed time to plead specially, but not to demur, unless it be a general demurrer, fair and substantial. It is stated this demurrer is for the purpose of delay, and it would be obstructing the course of justice to permit it, if overruled on argument day, it is certain we cannot execute a writ of enquiry this term. Hence, if this demurrer be frivolous it ought to be set aside so as to afford an opportunity to execute a writ of enquiry this term.
Humphreys J.
The parties ought to be allowed to agree amongst themselves, and he saw no reason why agreements should not be enforced by the court. Agreements have always been customary and the courts in many instances have enforced them.
Barne's 263, 271. Burr. 782 59. 1 Bl. R. 376. 3 T.R. 124. Burr. 605. 3 Burr.1788-9 2 Str. 1155. 1 Say. 88. Coleman's & Caine's C. 80 416. 10 East.237.
See 1 John. R. 507 7 John. 320. 6 John. 300. 3 Caine's R 131.