Filed: Feb. 29, 1808
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 8 U.S. 237 (_) 4 Cranch 237 WOODS & BEMIS v. YOUNG. Supreme Court of United States. *238 The case was submitted to the court without argument, by Swann, for the plaintiffs, and Youngs, for the defendant. By the Court. The question is, whether a refusal to continue a cause can be assigned for error. The impression of the court is, that it cannot. Has the party, by law, a right to a continuance in any case If he has, it will have weight. Is it not merely a matter of favour and discretion This is
Summary: 8 U.S. 237 (_) 4 Cranch 237 WOODS & BEMIS v. YOUNG. Supreme Court of United States. *238 The case was submitted to the court without argument, by Swann, for the plaintiffs, and Youngs, for the defendant. By the Court. The question is, whether a refusal to continue a cause can be assigned for error. The impression of the court is, that it cannot. Has the party, by law, a right to a continuance in any case If he has, it will have weight. Is it not merely a matter of favour and discretion This is ..
More
8 U.S. 237 (____)
4 Cranch 237
WOODS & BEMIS
v.
YOUNG.
Supreme Court of United States.
The case was submitted to the court without argument, by Swann, for the plaintiffs, and Youngs, for the defendant.
By the Court.
The question is, whether a refusal to continue a cause can be assigned for error.
The impression of the court is, that it cannot. Has the party, by law, a right to a continuance in any case? If he has, it will have weight. Is it not merely a matter of favour and discretion?
This is a case in which this court cannot look into the merits of the question, whether the court below ought to have granted a continuance of the cause.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.[*]
NOTES
[*] This case was brought up in expectation that this court would have decided the question whether an attachment can be served upon a person who resides out of the district, but within 100 miles of the place of trial, and who has been summoned and fails to attend as a witness in a civil cause.
But the court, having intimated an opinion that the refusal to continue the cause could not be assigned for error, the counsel did not argue the other point.
