Pierson v. Holbrook
HIRAM PIERSON v. CHARLES M. HOLBROOK
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Outcome
- affirmed — Judgment affirmed, with costs.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Heydeneeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydeneeldt
Heydeneeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, Murray, Justice, concurring.
Appeal from the refusal of a continuance.
The defendant’s answer was filed May 10th, 1852, and the application for a continuance, to take the testimony of a witness in New York, was filed June 14th, 1852, during which time no attempt was made to sue out a commission for the purpose.
This is not sufficient diligence to entitle a party to the indulgence applied for. One half of the time which would be required to take the testimony, was allowed to elapse without *599action. When the distance and delay are so great, every consideration requires that parties should be held to the strictest diligence.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.