Maund v. Loeb & Brother
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry. Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by J. Loeb & Brother, suing as partners, against ¥m.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry. Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by J. Loeb & Brother, suing as partners, against ¥m. T. Maund, to recover damages for the conversion of certain goods particularly described; and was commenced on the 30th March, 1887. At the September term, 1888, an order was entered in the cause, in these words; “Continued by defendant, upon payment of all costs to date, as a condition precedent, to be paid in ninety days, or judgment to go against defendant at next term;” and the bill of exceptions states, that this order “was made in…
1Opinion of the CourtClopton, J.
The continuance of a case is in the discretion of the court, and such terms may be imposed, under the rule of practice, as to the court may seem proper. At the Fall térm, 1888, of the Circuit Court, defendant obtained a continuance, upon payment of all the costs as a condition precedent, to be paid in ninety days, or judgment to go against him at the next term. The costs were not paid until the first day of the next term, and after the case was called for trial, which was more than ninety days from the time of the order. Defendant having applied for, obtained, and accepted the continuance, we…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Waller v. Sultzbacher & PaigeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1862
3Cited by6 opinions
- Prudential Casualty Co. v. KerrSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- McCarty v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Torrey v. BishopSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Gluck v. CoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. BerrieAlabama Court of Appeals · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.