
    John L. Norton v. Gotlib Kosboth and others.
    1824. March 24.
    ¿Negotiations between the parties for a settlement, are not sufficient to excuse a. default in the regular proceedings of the court, without the express agreement of the parties.
    Mr. Seely moved to dismiss the bill for want of prose- * cution, the answer having been long since filed, and no replication having been put in, nor other proceeding taken.
    Mr. Conkling opposed the motion, upon affidavits, stating negotiations between the parties, and an arbitration, which, however, had not proceeded to an adjustment. It did not appear that there had been any written agreement to suspend proceedings in this court; hut it was insisted that the acts of the parties amounted to a virtual suspension.
   The Court.

In the view of this court, the complainant must be considered in default, unless there be an express consent to suspend proceedings. Let the complainant therefore have leave to reply, but on payment of costs.  