
    Galloway against Saunders.
    A nonpros,, entered in ejectment, after a plea of not guilty, and a rule for trial or nonpros. is regular, though the plaintiff has not filed a description of the land, and issufc has not been joined.
    It is the duty of the plaintiff, in such case, tó file a description, join issue, and put; the cause on the trial list.
    In Error.
    THE plaintiff assigned for error, that the Court of Common Pleas gave judgment of non pros, against him. It was an ejectment brought in the Common Pleas of Northumberland county, in pursuance of the act of 21st March, 1806. The defendant appeared, and pleaded not guilty: the plaintiff not having filed a description of the land as directed by the act of assembly. The cause having remained several times in this situation, a rule was laid on the plaintiff in November, 1811, “to bring on his cause, to be tried at the next “ term, or non pros.” and, under this rule, a non pros, was entered 29th January, 1812. The plaintiff now contended, 1. That no description of the land was filed. 2. That the issue was not joined, and therefore the rule of trial, or non pros, was improper. He contended also, that it was the business of the defendant to have the cause put on the trial list after the rule was laid.
    
      Greenough and Watts, for the plaintiff.
    The act of 21st March, 1806, prescribes the form of writ, and manner of joining issue. Until a statement is filed the cause cannot be at issue. The defendant’s plea of not guilty does not make an issue. They cited 1 Browne's Rep. 194.
    
      Hall and Duncan, contra.
    The defendant may, if he pleases,take a proviso rule, and then he brings forward the cause to. trial himself. Or he may lay a rule on the plaintiff to bring his cause to trial or nonpros. In this case, he took the latter course* Sometimes the Court will take off the non pros. but here the cause lay under a non pros, for two years and three months before the plaintiff moved to take it off. The plaintiff urges, in his excuse, that he had not complied with the act of 21st March, 1806: so that he wishes to take advantage of his own default. In Wenn v. Adams,
      
       there was a rule for trial, or non pros, and the plaintiff was non prossed, although he had filed no narr., and, therefore, the cause was not ready for trial.
    
      
       2 Dall. 156.
      
    
   Tilghman C. J.

(After stating the case.) The two first objections are founded on the plaintiff’s own default: for it was his business to file a statement, and also to join the issue : which only required the words, and the aforesaid ,plaintiff in like manner, &c.” to make it complete. The Court of Common Pleas has a right to make rules for the regulation of the practice, and unless the contrary should be extremely clear, we must suppose that the construction they give to their own rules is right. The case of Wenn v. Adams. 2 Dall. 156. bears a strong resemblance to the case before us. There the defendant pleaded, and laid a rule for trial or nonpros, before a declaration was filed; and the Court en-. forced the non pros., because the plaintiff, by receiving the plea, and submitting to the rule, had waved the objection arising from the want of a declaration; and it was his business, after the rule was laid, to file a declaration, and prepare the cause for trial. So in the present case, the rule being laid, the plaintiff was bound to file a description of the land, to join the issue, and put the cause on the trial list; because all these things were necessary in order to bring the cause to trial. I am therefore of opinion that the judgment of non pros, should be affirmed.

Yeates J. delivered an opinion to the same effect.

Brackenridge J. was sick and absent.

Judgment affirmed*  