
    Lawrence against Dickenson.
    Suit is removed from common pleas by habeas corp,us-’ .ii?d the piaintm ncglectsto declare term™ andtiiie defendant afterwards reíuses to receive a declaration; then the plaintiff brings a here^fo aC*the same cause. not stay proket^sm™ till the costs of the
    defendant re-by habeas cor-plaintiff5 does not follow him thi5ecou™She is not bound to pay cos s.
    H. B. Davis, for the defendant,
    moved to stay proceed jngS until the costs of a former suit, for the same cause, were ., „ . , , , paid. The former suit was between the same parties, and commenced in the Court of Common Pleas, and removed 1 by the defendant into this Court. Two terms having elapsed after he had put in special bail, the plaintiff then proceeded to declare, but the defendant’s attorney refused to re- . ceive a declaration,
    
      D. Russell, contra,
    could not conceive upon what ground the defendant expected to succeed in his application, Wherever proceedings are stayed till the costs of another suit are paid, the defendant should, at least, be entitled to receive) an(l the plaintiff bound to pay them. Here is no-thing like vexation in the conduct of the plaintiff. He offer-to proceed in the first suit, but the defendant prevented him by taking a ground strictly technical, and is no more entitled to receive the costs of the first suit either in law or justice> than if they had been already paid to him.
    
      Davis
    
    admitted that the plaintiff would not have been liable to pay the costs ; that is to say, the defendant could nQt yiavg execution. But having brought a second suit for the same cause, for this vexation, the Court will exercise their power of staying proceedings till the costs are paid. The defendant has no other remedy.
   Curia.

Here is nothing like vexation. The plaintiff offered to proceed with his first suit, but you prevented him by refusing to receive a declaration.

Motion denied, with costs.  