Brooklyn Oil Works v. Brown
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion, at the trial term, for an adjournment. This action was brought by the Brooklyn Oil Works against Daniel Brown and others. Upon the cause coming on for trial trial, the defend - ants moved for an adjournment, on account of the absence’of a witness.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCunn, J.
By some courts, the adjournment of a trial is held to be so much a matter in the discretion of a judge at nisi prius that his denial of the postponement cannot be assigned for error (Woods v. Young, 4 Cranch, 237).
In this State, a refusal of an adjournment is not the subject of exception, but may be reviewed on motion lor a new trial (People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow., 108, 369 ; *383People v. Superior Court of the City of New York, 10 Wend., 299; Howard v. Freeman, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S., 292).
For while we hold the allowance or denial of an adjournment to be within the discretion of the judge at trial,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Woods v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1808
- People v. VermilyeaNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- People v. VermilyeaNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Brill v. LordNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- People v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for New York · 1806
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.