Majority
p. 487Bissell against Dennison. February, 18 th objected that the respondent had not given notice to the appellant, of his having set down the cause fora hearing, nor of his intention to bring it on, and that the appellant was not ready.
Headnote
A responded toay set down'a forbear. mg, ex parte, aud “ftheo? pellant; and jf tbe appellant th”d1^ or £ ¡5?oceeddto tu peai maybe ais' missed.THIS cause having been set down for a hearing, on the part . , i r rr • I , °. r of the respondent, 1. Hamilton, now moved to brmg it 1 ° to a bearing. The appellant had not aet down the, -cause for hearing.
Van Vechten, for the appellant,
Hamilton, in reply,
said, that the cause was set down for hearing, on the part of the respondent, at the last session of the court, when the appellant applied for, and obtained, an order for the cause to go off, on an affidavit that the appellant had not been able to obtain the necessary transcripts for the court below. He stated, that there was no rule of the court requiring the respondent to give notice to the appellant, of having set the cause down for hearing, nor did he understand such to be the practice.
As the appellant is not ready to proceed, and no person appears to oppose the decree of the court below, I think the court ought to dismiss the appeal. The respondent is entitled to bring on the hearing ex parte; but as the court never hear an argument ex parte, the respondent must be entitled to his decree in the court below.
After some discussion, as to the regularity of this proceeding/Üie court were of opinion that it was, correct.
Per Curiam. Ordered, that the appeal be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.