Mead

Mead v. Broads

Good Law
1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 310·21 Cal. App. 324·131 P. 758
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1913Civ. No. 1011.California589 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

James, J.

By this appeal, taken from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs, but one question is presented for review, and that is whether the trial court erred .in denying a motion made for continuance of the trial on the ground of the absence of the defendant Bernard Broads. This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiffs through the acts of the defendants in allowing and permitting water and other liquids to flow through the ceiling of plaintiffs’ storeroom. An injunction was' also asked to restrain the continuance of the acts complained of. Answer was filed and the cause came on regularly for trial, when the attorney for defendants presented an affidavit showing that defendant Bernard Broads, the husband of defendant Laura Broads, was sick and unable to attend the trial; that said Bernard Broads was the only person who knew of the whereabouts of witnesses necessary to be called on behalf of defendants, and that defendants could not safely proceed to trial without the presence of said Broads. It was not shown by the affidavit as to when the absent defendant would probably be able to appear, or that it was expected that he would so be able…

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.