Case Name: Nesbit versus Pope
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1792
Citations: 2 Dall. 143
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nesbit versus Pope.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 143–143

Head Matter:
Nesbit versus Pope.
THE defendant had, at a former term, obtained a rule to try, or non pros. At this term the defendant’s counsel, not recollecting this, desired the plaintiff to continue the cause, which he agreed to, and the Prothonotary entered a continuance accordingly : But, immediately after, discovering that he had a rule on the plaintiff, the defendant acquainted the opposite counsel with it, and gave notice that he should insist upon the rule. This day the cause was called and the defendant moved that it might be ordered on : The plaintiff objected ; and insisted that entry of the continuance was conclusive.

Opinion:
By the Court:
—Such an entry cannot be conclusive. This is a mere mistake ; and as it was immediately discovered, and notice given, no inconvenience arose from it. If the plaintiff had suffered any thing by it, it might have been another matter: But here he could suffer nothing. If he was ready for trial when the entry was made, he must be ready when the mistake was notified to him.