Hawes v. Clark
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the ' city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
Hawes obtained a judgment against Clark, based upon two promissory notes. From that judgment, and an 'order denying a new trial, the defendant appeals.
*274Appellant claims that the trial court should have granted the motion for a new trial, made in his behalf, because it was guilty of an abuse of discretion in not granting a continuance on the ground of the inflamed condition of the eyes of his counsel. The court saw the counsel and his condition at the time the application was made, and was a further witness to the fact that, notwithstanding his alleged disability, he immediately…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Smith v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Hearne v. De YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. AbrahamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Reclamation District No. 535 v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Continental Building & Loan Ass'n v. WoolfCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.