DISCONTINUANCE. In Pleading. The chasm or interruption which occurs when no answer is given to some material mat ter in the preceding pleading, and the op posite party neglects to take advantage of such omission. See Com. Dig. Pleader, W.; Bac. Abr. Pleas, P. It is distinguished from insufficient pleading by the fact that the pleading does not profess to answer all the preceding pleading in a case of discontinu ance; 1 Wms. Saund. 28, n. It constitutes error, but may be cured after verdict, by 32 Hen. VIII. c. 80, and after judgment by n'il dicit, confession, or non sum informatus under 4 Anne, c. 16. See, generally, 1 Saund. 28; 4 Rep. 62 a; Taft v. Transp. Co., 56 N. H. 414.
In Practice. The chasm, or interruption in proceedings occasioned by the failure of the plaintiff to continue the suit regularly from to time, as he ought; 3 Bla. Com. 296; Germania Fire Ins. Co., v. Francis, 52 Miss. 467, 24 Am. Rep. 674; Taft, v. Transp. Co., 56 N. H. 416. The entry upon record of a discontinuance has the same ef fect. The plaintiff cannot discontinue after
demurrer joined and entered, or after ver dict or writ of inquiry, without leave of court; Cro. Jac. 35; 1 Lilly, Abr. 473; 8 C. C. App. 437 ; but see Lowman v. West, 7 Wash. 407, 35 Pac. 130.; although he can notwithstanding the interposition of a coun terclaim; Felix v. Vanslooten, 17 N. Y. Sup. 844; and. is generally liable for costs when he discontinues, though not in all cases. Leave to discontinue will• be refused when proofs had been taken and closed at large expense to defendant, when no other ground is shown except a desire to, relitigate in a new suit the questions involved ; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Mayer & Englund Co., 121 Fed. 127. See Hart v. Storey, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 143 ; Ludlow v. Hackett, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 252; Lackey v. McDonald, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 116; Thurman v. James, 48 Mo. 235; Etheridge v. Osborn, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 402; Com. Dig. Pleader (W 5); Bac. Abr. Plea (5 P ).