Heydeneeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, Murray, Justice, concurring. Appeal from the refusal of a continuance. The defendant’s answer was filed May 10th, 1852, and the application for a continuance, to take the testimony of a witness in New York, was filed June 14th, 1852, during which time no attempt was made to sue out a commission for the purpose. This is not sufficient diligence to entitle a party to the indulgence applied for. One half of the time which would be required to take the testimony, was allowed to elapse without action.
When the distance and delay are so great, every consideration requires that parties should be held to the strictest diligence. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Loading document…
HIRAM PIERSON, Appellant, v. CHARLES M. HOLBROOK, Respondent, 2 Cal. 598 | CaseLite