Byne v. Jackson
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Brazoria. Tried below before the Hon. George W. Smith. This was a suit brought on the 12th day of March, 1859, by Francis M. Jackson against William H. Byne, on a note for $800, due on the 1st day of January, 1859. At the Fall Term of the court, the;defendant pleaded payment of the note in the -year 1859; and, on the calling of the case,.moved for a continuance, supported by his affidavit, which stated that he could not go safely to trial for the want of the…
Read the full summary
Error from Brazoria. Tried below before the Hon. George W. Smith. This was a suit brought on the 12th day of March, 1859, by Francis M. Jackson against William H. Byne, on a note for $800, due on the 1st day of January, 1859. At the Fall Term of the court, the;defendant pleaded payment of the note in the -year 1859; and, on the calling of the case,.moved for a continuance, supported by his affidavit, which stated that he could not go safely to trial for the want of the testimony of John Oanagan, a transient person, whose residence is unknown; that the testimony of the witness was material to…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion that the court below did not err in overruling the motion to continue the cause. The facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the motion to continue, did not entitle the party to a continuance as matter of strict right under the statute. The statute, in speaking of a first application for a con*97tinuanco, contemplates a case in which diligence has actually been used. It is true, that where no possible diligence could have accomplished the object of procuring the testimony for want of which the continuance is sought, then the continuance will not he refused because the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Chilson v. ReevesTexas Supreme Court · 1867