Court Opinion

ID: 6248816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 21:08:07.490228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:21.954509
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam,
A discontinuance in strict law must be by leave of the court, but it is the universal practice in Pennnsylvania to assume such leave in the first instance. This was stated to be the established practice as long ago as 1843, in Schuylkill Bank v. Macalester, 6 W. & S. 147, where it is said per curiam “ all the cases show that a discontinuance must be founded on the express or implied leave of the court. In England this leave *192is obtained on motion in the first instance, and here it is taken without the formality of an application, but subject to be withdrawn on cause shown for it; that is the whole difference.”
The causes which will move the court to withdraw its assumed leave and set aside the discontinuance are addressed to its discretion and usually involve some unjust disadvantage to the defendant or to some other interested party, such as a surety. The fact that a case is at issue on a plea of set-off is not sufficient to prevent the plaintiff from taking a nonsuit: McCredy v. Fey, 7 Watts, 496; Gilmore v. Reed, 76 Pa. 462. And without some other hardship the same rule applies to a discontinuance, in actions at law. The practice in equity is somewhat stricter.
The plaintiff, following the usual practice, entered a discontinuance on the assumed leave of the court. A rule was then taken by defendant to strike off the discontinuance, which the court heard and discharged. This was equivalent to a grant of leave. Defendant then filed" a petition for a rule to show cause why the order discharging the previous rule should not be rescinded and the discontinuance be set aside. This petition the court dismissed and from this action the present appeal was taken. Having considered and discharged the rule the court was not bound to reconsider the matter on the new and amplified application by petition. If appellant failed to present his whole case at the hearing of the rule, as fully as his present counsel now thinks desirable, the fault or misfortune was his own. He was bound to present his whole case and his failure to do so did not entitle him to a second hearing. The court might ex gratia have given him a second rule, but was under no obligation to do so.
Judgment affirmed.