Legal Opinion

Brooklyn Oil Works v. Brown

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided July 1, 1870PublishedCited by 4 opinions

This was a motion to postpone on account of an absent witness.

1Opinion of the Court

McCunn, J. (Nisi Prius)

By some courts the adjourn ment 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 agt. Younq, 4 Cranch, 237).

In this state a refusal of an adjournment is not the subject of exception, but may be reviewed on motion for a new trial. (People agt. Vermilyea, 7 Cowen., 108; People agt. Superior Court of City of N. Y., 10 Wend., 299; Howard agt. Freeman, 3 Abb. N. S., 292).

For while we held the exception in denial of an adournment to be within the discretion of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Woods v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1808
  2. People v. VermilyeaNew York Supreme Court · 1827
  3. Brill v. LordNew York Supreme Court · 1817
  4. People v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for New York · 1806

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Estate of Hatten v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  2. State ex rel. Spring River Electric Power Co. v. ThurmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
  3. Brown v. WarrenNevada Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Perkins v. WhitneyNew York Supreme Court · 1890

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API