Hammond v. Haws

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Hammond v. Haws

11 F. Cas. 390, 1 Wall. 1, 1801 U.S. App. LEXIS 236

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 11, 1801

StatusPublished

Cited by42 cases

This text of 11 F. Cas. 390 (Hammond v. Haws) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hammond v. Haws, 11 F. Cas. 390, 1 Wall. 1, 1801 U.S. App. LEXIS 236 (circtdpa 1801).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge.⁴

I have no hesitation in this case to say the rule for a non pros, should be made absolute. The plaintiff let the cause sleep from October, 1795 to October, 1800. The defendant harassed with attendances, then took the rule for trial or non pros. This was served on Mr. Wilcocks, and was a solemn notice, that the defendant would be tried or discharged. Since then seven months have elapsed; the lessors having a regular agent, and an attorney for transacting their business. The vague allegations that their attorney had about that time or since, declined business, and their agent, Mr. Morris, been so over-burthened with other affairs, that he could not attend to this, furnish no grounds, upon which a court of justice can act; such representations, if admitted to prevail, may be always urged. As to the change of the attorney in fact, it makes no alteration; one continued until the other was appointed. Besides, Mr. Bond’s powers arrived in February; so that there has been an agent on the spot three months, and nothing done but to put some papers into the hands of counsel, and that not until April. We cannot be influenced by such reasons. The plaintiff ought to proceed to trial, unless he can lay before us a precise legal ground for postponement, or such circumstances of hardship, not resulting from inattention, or the acts of his agent and attorney, as would make us feel that it was essential to justice to retain the cause.

BASSETT, Circuit Judge.

I am always desirous to give indulgence where it may advance justice, and work no considerable injury or infringe any established rule of law. But one party must not be wronged by the extension of accommodations to the other. The only question is, whether the plaintiff has used due diligence to bring this cause to trial, and has been prevented by obstructions which furnish a precise and reasonable ground for a continuance. I do not think he has. I am therefore against it.

TILGHMAN, Chief Judge.

The case made by Mr. Rawle for the plaintiff, is insufficient to authorize us to continue the cause: no legal reason is assigned to justify the want of preparation for trial.

Let the rule for a non pros, be made absolute.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge.⁴

I have no hesitation in this case to say the rule for a non pros, should be made absolute. The plaintiff let the cause sleep from October, 1795 to October, 1800. The defendant harassed with attendances, then took the rule for trial or non pros. This was served on Mr. Wilcocks, and was a solemn notice, that the defendant would be tried or discharged. Since then seven months have elapsed; the lessors having a regular agent, and an attorney for transacting their business. The vague allegations that their attorney had about that time or since, declined business, and their agent, Mr. Morris, been so over-burthened with other affairs, that he could not attend to this, furnish no grounds, upon which a court of justice can act; such representations, if admitted to prevail, may be always urged. As to the change of the attorney in fact, it makes no alteration; one continued until the other was appointed. Besides, Mr. Bond’s powers arrived in February; so that there has been an agent on the spot three months, and nothing done but to put some papers into the hands of counsel, and that not until April. We cannot be influenced by such reasons. The plaintiff ought to proceed to trial, unless he can lay before us a precise legal ground for postponement, or such circumstances of hardship, not resulting from inattention, or the acts of his agent and attorney, as would make us feel that it was essential to justice to retain the cause.

BASSETT, Circuit Judge.

I am always desirous to give indulgence where it may advance justice, and work no considerable injury or infringe any established rule of law. But one party must not be wronged by the extension of accommodations to the other. The only question is, whether the plaintiff has used due diligence to bring this cause to trial, and has been prevented by obstructions which furnish a precise and reasonable ground for a continuance. I do not think he has. I am therefore against it.

TILGHMAN, Chief Judge.

The case made by Mr. Rawle for the plaintiff, is insufficient to authorize us to continue the cause: no legal reason is assigned to justify the want of preparation for trial.

Let the rule for a non pros, be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 390, 1 Wall. 1, 1801 U.S. App. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-haws-circtdpa-1801.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack