In practice. Thetermination of an action, in consequence of the plaintiff’s omitting to continue the processor proceedings by proper entries on the record. 3 Bl. Comm. 296; 1 Tidd, Pr. 678;2 Arch. Pr. K. B. 233. Hadwin v. Railway Co., 67 S. C. 463, 45 S. E. 1019; Gillespie v.Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70, 29 Am. Rep. 455; Kennedy v. McNiclcle, 7 Pliila. (Pa.) 217;Insurance Co. v. Francis, 52 Miss. 467, 24 Am. Rep. 674.In practice, a discontinuance is a chasm or gap left by neglecting to enter acontinuance. By our practice, a neglect to enter a continuance, even in a defaultedaction, by no means puts an end to it, and such actions may always be broughtforward. Taft v. Northern Transp. Co., 5G N. II. 416.The cessation of the proceedings in an action where (be plaintiff voluntarily puts anend to it, either by giving notice in writing to the defendant before any step bas beentaken in the action subsequent to the answer, or at any other time by order of the court or a judge.In practice, discontinuance and dismissal import the same thing, viz., that the causeis sent out of court. Thurman v. James, 48 Mo. 2″5.In pleading. That technical interruption of the proceedings in an action which followswhere a defendant does not answer the whole of the plaintiff’s declaration, and the plaintiff omits to take judgment for the part unanswered.Steph. PL 216, 217.