Killmer v. Crary
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR* on certiorari to a justice’s court. The plaintiff in error, who was the defendant in the court be.low, having* ©n the return of the'summons, obtained an adjournmeht, appeared* on the day to which the causé,was adjourned, attorney, and requested another adjournment on account of the absence of material, witnesses.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR* on certiorari to a justice’s court. The plaintiff in error, who was the defendant in the court be.low, having* ©n the return of the'summons, obtained an adjournmeht, appeared* on the day to which the causé,was adjourned, attorney, and requested another adjournment on account of the absence of material, witnesses. The application was opposed' ' ». % the plaintiff below, and oné of the grounds of opposition was, t^t attorney OOuld not make the affidavit that the witnesses were material; upon which the attorney stated that'the defendánt was sick, and could not attend. The justice…
1Per curiam
The only'question in this case is* whether the justice ought to have received the affidavit of the attorney, as to the absence and materiality of the Witnesses. This Was, .in'; Some manner,. á; matter resting in the spund discretion of the justice ; and .from the evidence returned, as to the inability of the defendant to attend the court, wq oannót say that there: was -such án abuse of this discretion as to'justify the setting aside the -judgment, it is clear ■ that .the-defendant might have attended court; The cause of his inability alleged, was a complaint in his face, arising, as the,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Carpenter v. Natoma Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1883
- Mossman v. DoleHawaii Supreme Court · 1902