Belcher v. Skinner
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Loup county. Tried below before Harrison, J. Mere statements under oath, or conclusions of a party, are not proof. (2 Bouvier, Law Diet. [15th Ed.], 748; Greenleaf, Ev. [14th Ed.], 1; Jameson v. Butler, 1 Neb., 118; State, ecc rel. Barries, v. Thateh, 5 Id., 96; Ingalls v. Nobles, 14 Id., 274.) The granting of a continuance is discretionary with the trial court. {Holt v. State, 11 Ohio St., 691, and cases supra.)
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This action was brought by the plaintiff in the county court of Loup county, in March, 1889, and summons duly issued and served on the defendant. On the return day of the summons the defendant appeared and filed a motion for a continuance for thirty days, supported by an affidavit, as follows':
“State of Nebraska, 1 Loup County. j
“I, John M. Skinner, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, depose and say, that Charles Walker is a material witness for him in the above cause, without whose testimony, which he expects to procure, he cannot safely proceed to trial; that the said Charles Walker, as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Coombs v. BrenklanderNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Moran v. McCullumNebraska Supreme Court · 1897