Case Name: Halhead versus Ross, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1789-01
Citations: 1 Dall. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: Halhead versus Ross, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Dallas
Volume: 1
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
Halhead versus Ross, et al.
MOYLAN had entered a rule for trial at the last term or Non-pros. The rule being continued ’till this term, a plea was added, and particular facts referred; and upon these a report had been made a few days before the day appointed for the trial of the cause.
Lewis, for the Plaintiff,
now objected, to the trial’s coming on; and Moylan insisted that he was entitled to a Non pros.

Opinion:
But by
M'Kean, Chief Justice
The subsequent plea and referrence virtually vacate the previous rule for trial or Non pres. The cause must, therefore, he continued under a new rule.