
    JOHN LAMDEN v. JOHN SHARP and ALLEN HURST.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 18-19.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1847
    PRACTICE. No orders at term after continuance.
    After a continuance has been entered, no rule or order can be had in the cause at that term of court. [Cited and approved in Crouch v. Mullinix, 1 Heis., 481. See Hurst v. Selvidge, supra, and notes.]
    • The question, decided in. this cause was the same as iu Iiurst v. Selvidge, supra.
    The cause was continued by consent of parties on a certain Monday of the term. At the same time a rale was pending requiring the plaintiff to justify his security for the prosecution of the suit, or give new security, by the following day, Tuesday. On the following Saturday, the court dismissed the suit for noncompliance with the rule, and the plaintiff appealed in error to- this court.
   Reese, J.:

The cause having been continued, no- rule or other proceeding could be had in it at that term of the court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.  