Chester

Kern Valley Bank v. Chester

Good Law
55 Cal. 49
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,956California676 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of foreclosure, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The defendants are husband and wife, and filed separate answers to the complaint. The former, in his answer, denies the allegation of the complaint that the plaintiff had paid State and county taxes to the amount of $603, or in any amount. lie further denied the allegation that no part of the interest on the principal sum claimed to be due on the note had been paid. The answer of the other defendant contains the same denials. When the case was reached and called for trial, Mrs. Chester, one of the defendants, moved for a continuance upon her own *51 affidavit, which stated in substance that her attorney was necessarily absent, being engaged in a distant county in the actual trial of a cause, and that her husband and codefendant, and one Force, were both necessary and material witnesses in her behalf, and were necessarily absent, being at San Francisco, the former attending a trial of a case in which he was a party and material and necessary witness. She did not state what she expected to prove by said witnesses, or either of them. It is sufficient to say of this…

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.