Watson v. Walsh & Patterson
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The only point to be considered is, whether the court below erred or not in refusing to grant the continuance asked for by Watson, at the return term of the writ. We think that the refusal to grant the continuance was erroneous. 1. The defendant was not entitled, as to a mere legal right, to a continuance. No statute gives him that right.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The only point to be considered is, whether the court below erred or not in refusing to grant the continuance asked for by Watson, at the return term of the writ. We think that the refusal to grant the continuance was erroneous. 1. The defendant was not entitled, as to a mere legal right, to a continuance. No statute gives him that right. The 2nd section of the 4th article of the Law of Practice provides for the continuance of such cases only as “shall notbe otherwise disposed of according to law.” R. C., p. 816. 2. Supposing the case entitled to…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
The appellant was sued by the appellees in the St. Louis Circuit Court in assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts, one on a promissory note and one on a count for money had and received. The writ was served on the appellant personally, more than twenty days before the beginning of the return term. There was no profert made in the declaration of the note sued on, in consequence of which there was a demurrer toTthe count on the note, which was sustained. An issue was made up on the second count, and the appellee applied for a continuance, which was refused, and judgment was rendered…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lawther v. AgeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Doan v. HollySupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Murray v. PurdySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Lilly v. MenkeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894