
    
      Rachel Malin v. Ephraim Kinney. The same v. Nathan Lane.
    
    THESE causes were noticed for trial at the circuit held for Ontario, in June, 1802. The defendants attended with their witnesses, but the plaintiff not bringing on the causes, the defendants agreed to waive taking advantage of it, provided the .plaintiff would consent that the two above suits' should abide the decision of a case'made in one by the same plaintiff against George Brown, which turned on the same point, and had, together with another of the same sort, been tried. The plaintiff’ acceded to the proposition, but at the last term applied to the court to ' be released from her engagement. This the court was pleased to order..
    
      Emott
    
    now moved for judgment of nonsuit, and that the plaintiff pay the costs not only of riot proceeding to trial in 1802, but those also for not trying at the last circuit. - He contended that as the agreement was done away on the application of the plaintiff, the defendant liad a right tó those costs which lie waived only in consequence of that agreerrient r The agreement was the consideration of the waiver, and the consideration being taken "away, he had a right to insist on not waiving. Then as to the costs of the last circuit, it was clear he was entitled; because, as the plaintiff had been released and had not tried, it was manifest she was in default and costs due.
    
      
      Stuart, contra,
    showed, on affidavit, that the rule to discharge the agreement was made at the latter part of the last term, and that from the late information he received of it, he could not avail himself, at the last circuit, of the advantage it afforded;
   Per Curiam.

The application is for judgment as in case of nonsuit, and to pay two sets of costs; those of June, 1802, and those of the last circuit. Four causes were depending : Two were tried, and, after the court rose, there was a stipulation that the two causes not tried, should abide the same event as those which had been tried. An application was made in May last to be relieved; that the two causes not ed might be restored, and the plaintiff not boun<M5y*£> his stipulation : This was ordered, and the causes stored as in June, 1802. If the plaintiff was relieved, the defendant was also ; and then the stipulation being vacated, the causes must stand in the situation as in June, 1802. If the defendant had then applied, nothing appears why the rule should not then have been granted, at least a rule to stipulate and pay costs. The only reason to excuse now offered is, that the plaintiff did not receive notice of his own rule. Both circuits mentioned have passed without trial; therefore the defendant must have the effect of his motion, unless the plaintiff stipulate to try the cause at the next circuit, and pay the costs of that in June last.  