Griffin v. Polhemus (1862) · DecisionDepot

Griffin v. Polhemus

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1862Published

Before: Field, Norton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the granting or refusing of a continuance is a matter of sound judicial discretion that will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of arbitrary action.

Issues

Whether the trial court's denial of a continuance constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the granting or refusing of a continuance rested in the sound discretion of the Court below, and that its ruling would not be revised, except for the most cogent reasons.”

“when it exercises a reasonable and not an arbitrary discretion, its action will not be disturbed.”

Synopsis

The granting or refusing of a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the Court to which the application is made, and its ruling will not be revised by the appellate Court, except for the most cogent reasons.

Accordingly, where an application for a continuance on the ground of the absence of a material witness, alleged to be in Hew South Wales, was opposed by an affidavit, showing in substance that the witness had been in San Erancisco (the place of trial) a long period after issue joined, and before the case was called for trial; that the witness had been examined on a previous trial; and that the plaintiff knew of the witness’ intention to leave San Erancisco some time before his departure, and the application was refused by the Court, and judgment of dismissal for want of evidence was accordingly entered. On appeal the judgment was affirmed.

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring. In Musgrove v. Perkins (9 Cal. 212) we held, that the granting or refusing of a continuance rested in the sound discretion of the Court below, and that its ruling would not be revised, except for the most cogent reasons. “ The Court below,” we observed, “ is apprized of all the circumstances of the case and the previous proceedings, and is, therefore, better able to decide upon the propriety of granting the application than an appellate Court; and when it exercises a reasonable and not an arbitrary discretion, its action will not be disturbed.” The same views have been repeatedly expressed by us in other cases, and there is nothing in the present case which would justify any qualification or departure from them. (The Pilot Rock Creek Canal Co. v. Chapman et al., 11 Cal. 161.)

Judgment affirmed.

Griffin v. Polhemus

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief