Watson

Watson v. Columbia Basin Development Co.

Good Law
1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 102·22 Cal. App. 556·135 P. 511
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 13, 1913Civ. No. 1094.California2,950 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and also from an order denying a motion to set it aside.

There is no pretense of error as to anything occurring antecedent to the rendition of the judgment unless possibly in reference to the refusal of the court to postpone the time of trial. This circumstance, however, is properly reviewable and will be considered in the determination of the question whether the court abused its discretion in declining to set aside the judgment.

The judgment recites that “This cause came on regularly for trial on the 12th day of July, 1912, J. C. Webster, Esq., appearing as attorney for the plaintiff, and Rowan Hardin, Esq., as attorney for the defendant. A trial by jury having been waived by the parties, the cause was tried by the court without a jury, and evidence oral and documentary having been adduced, the cause was argued by the respective counsel and submitted to the court for its decision,” etc. Indeed, it is not disputed that the defendant was regularly served, that it appeared and answered, and, at the request of its attorney, the cause was set for said July 12 for trial. On said date, Mr. Hardin appeared as attorney for defendant and moved the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.