
    BERGER vs. HARRISON.
    How far continuances by consent are under the control of the court.
    In Equity. This cause had been continued by consent for several years.
    Miller for the clerk and master, suggested, that the clerk ought to have his costs, if the parties had a mind to continue.
    Whiteside said, the parties had a right at all times to continue, nor could the court interfere.
   Per Curiam.

Continuances, whether by consent or otherwise, are under the direction of the court. The clerk has an interest, as is suggested, and it would be the most unreasonable thing imaginable, to suppose that the parties might continue ad infinitum, if they thought proper. Supposing this to be the case, we never should get clear of a suit, after being amicably compounded. Having no interest in a determination, both parties might agree to continue. Where causes are continued by consent, a much greater latitude will be allowed, than where either party is pressing for trial; but there should be some end of cases on the docket.

Whiteside then stated the ground why the cause had been continued for such a length of time.

Overton, j. was of opinion that it should be continued at the cost of the applicant.

Powel, j. In this case let the cause be continued as usual, to which Campbell, j. assented, and Overton, j. acquiesced, So the cause was continued.  