through a contribution from Google.
Case No. 7,803.
KING et al. v. SHAW.
[4 Cranch, C. C. 457.]1
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
March Term, 1834.
PRACTICE—PLEADING AT RETURN TERM.
In cases under the lien law, the court will not oblige the defendant to plead at the return term.
C. Cox, for plaintiffs [King and Pickerell], stated that it was a case under the lien law of March 2d, 1833, and moved the court for a rule on the defendant [W. P. Shaw] to plead at this term, because the lien could continue only two years from the commencement of the building, and if the plaintiffs should not get judgment within the two years they would lose the lien.
But THE COURT (nem. con.) refused to grant the rule.
1 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.