Ivey v. Neyland
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
WILDS ON, O. J.
(after stating the facts as above). . When the cause was called for trial, appellants moved to continue same because (it appears from a bill of exceptions in the record) of the absence of a witness, and sickness preventing one of appellants’ counsel from being present. Neither the name of the absent witness, what appellants expected to prove by him, the diligence, if any, used to procure his testimony, nor that appellants expected to procure by the next term of court, was stated in the motion; and one of appellants’ chosen counsel was present and represented them at the trial.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Sutherland v. PeaseCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- De Bruin v. Santo Domingo Land & Irrigation Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. v. WhisenantCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Short v. WaltersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Jung v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ivey v. NeylandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1930
- In Re Supples' EstateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Spiritual Temple v. WheelerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930