Pacey

Pacey v. McKinney

Good Law
125 F. 675·2 Alaska Fed. 174·60 C.C.A. 365·1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4201
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 14, 1903No. 862California1,225 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morrow, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The first two assignments of error relate to the refusal of the court to grant continuances of the cause. The first continuance was asked on the 10th day of December, 1901, when the cause was set for hearing, upon the ground that material and necessary witnesses were absent, whose testimony could not be procured before the following July term of court. An affidavit was filed by the plaintiff in error, stating the facts to which the absent witnesses would testify. The defendant in error admitted that the witnesses would so testify, and the court then refused the motion for a continuance. The plaintiff in error was not prejudiced by this action of the court. The second' or supplementary motion for a continuance was made on the 12th day of December, 1902, and was also based on the absence of material and necessary witnesses, other than those mentioned in the first affidavit on motion for continuance. In the affidavit of the plaintiff in error in support of this supplementary motion, it was stated that G. W. Dickenson and George Waller “are persons with whom, together with Ira Ranke, the plaintiff herein claims *180 to have made an oral agreement…

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.