Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Twombly's Adm'x
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from District Court, Arapahoe County. The cause was tried at the April term, 1874, of the district court, and a motion for new trial interposed by appellant. This motion was not heard until the September term in that year, and was then denied, and appellant excepted to the ruling of the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Arapahoe County. The cause was tried at the April term, 1874, of the district court, and a motion for new trial interposed by appellant. This motion was not heard until the September term in that year, and was then denied, and appellant excepted to the ruling of the court. The bill of exceptions embraced the evidence, the charge of the court to the jury, and certain prayers for instructions which were denied, all of which appellee now moved to strike out. In support of the motion it was contended that proceedings in the cause at the April term of court could not be…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
Convenience often requires that the consideration of a motion for new trial should be deferred from the term at which the trial occurs to a succeeding term. The *561usage of our courts sanction such continuances, and this usage is not without the support of authority. Riddlesburger v. McDaniel, 38 Mo. 140; Laird v. Ashley, 1 Clark, Ia. 571; Walker v. Hale, 16 Ala. 27.
The power to grant or deny such motion at a succeeding term, even before a different judge than the one who presided at the trial, has been recognized. Ott v. McHenry, 2 W. Va. 77; United States v. Harding, 1 Wall., Jr., 127. By what…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Riddlesbarger v. McDanielSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- How v. SimsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
3Cited by5 opinions
- Loloff v. SterlingSupreme Court of Colorado · 1903
- Holland v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1902
- Cone v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Colorado · 1898
- Stocking v. MoreySupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
- Messer v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1918