Legal Opinion

Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Hatch

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 20, 1930No. 8 Div. 115PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

It is well settled that a motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and the exercise of the discretion is not subject to review on appeal, unless it is made to appear that the discretion was abused. Knowles v. Blue et al., 209 Ala. 27, 95 So. 481; 5 Alabama-Southern Digest, 488, §7.

The defendant’s motion for continuance was predicated on facts alleged in the motion, and nothing appears in the record/as to what, if any, evidence was offered in support of the motion, and, under the settled rule, error in respect to refusing the defendant a continuance is not…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Knowles v. BlueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  2. Robinson v. CrotwellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  3. Roberts v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Emerson v. Providence Hat Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
  5. Gashwiler v. WillisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. ChambersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  2. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First Nat. Bank of LincolnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  3. Ledlow v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  4. Goodwin v. Household Finance Corp. of MontgomeryCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1970
  5. Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. HatchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API