Sonstelie v. Bush

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action to recover a judgment for injuries suffered in an automobile collision. The defendant answered and a trial was had

[398]

before the trial court sitting with a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from a judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.

The trial was held on October 4 and 5, 1928. Having obtained an order shortening time, counsel for defendant served and filed, on October 3, 1928, a notice of motion for a continuance. The motion was heard the morning of the trial. It was denied and the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying her motion. She cites and relies on the doctrine stated in such cases as

Jaffe

v.

Lilienthal,

101 Cal. 175 [35 Pac. 636];

Morehouse

v.

Morehouse,

136 Cal. 332 [68 Pac. 976];

Betts Spring Co.

v.

Jardine M. Co.,

23 Cal. App. 705 [139 Pac. 657];

Swayne & Hoyt

v.

Wells-Russell & Co.,

169 Cal. 204 [146 Pac. 686];

Pacific Gas etc. Co.

v.

Taylor,

52 Cal. App. 307 [198 Pac. 651];

Estate of Stevens,

57 Cal. App. 160 [206 Pac. 668]. She also lays stress on the fact that her motion was made under section 594 and not section 595 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have carefully examined all of her authorities. As each ease ordinarily is different in its facts it is not surprising that no one of the authorities is directly in point. It is not even claimed that because the defendant, a party, was absent it was