Waites v. D. M. Osborne & Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Kaufman. Tried below before the Hon. Anson Bainey. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Stayton, Associate Justice.
In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the ruling of the court overruling a motion for continuance can*650not be revised. The application seems to state facts sufficient to entitle a party to a first continuance; but it is wholly insufficient if regarded as a second application. We cannot know from the record that it was not the second application, and all presumptions must be indulged in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the court below, in the absence of a bill of exceptions showing to the contrary.
The action was brought to recover the amount claimed to be…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Vaughan v. Crown Plumbing & Sewer Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1975
- Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. HuffCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Alamo Fire Insurance Co. v. LancasterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Farmer v. Kay Bros.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.