Molle v. Jacob Kohlberg & Co.

California Supreme Court Mar 3, 1857 No. No. 1415Published

Before: Burnett, Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly refused a motion for a continuance because the defendants failed to exercise sufficient diligence in procuring testimony.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a continuance of the cause.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This was not such diligence as would authorize a postponement of the cause.”

“We think the continuance was properly refused.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Fifth Judicial District, Calavaras County.

TERRY, J. — The only error assigned is the refusal of the court to continue the cause on application of defendants.

[59]"We think the continuance was properly refused. The answer was filed on the 6th of June, 1856, and no effort was made to procure the testimony until the 2d of October, when a subpoena was issued for a nonresident witness. This was not such diligence as would authorize a postponement of the cause.

Judgment affirmed.

I concur: Burnett, J.

More from California Supreme Court

People v. Wende (1979)
People v. Watson (1956)
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
People v. Kelly (2006)
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
People v. Lewis (2021)
In Re Estrada (1965)
Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
People v. Marsden (1970)

Related research