¶1The exception is that the referees have acted improperly in not giving further time. We think that the exception is not supported, because Ridge did not inform the referees what evidence he wanted, the reason why he was not able then to produce it, and that he expected to be able to produce it in a reasonable time. A court of justice would not have granted a continuance, unless all these circumstances had been satisfactorily shewn. This court must decide on general principles. It is to be distinctly understood that a naked allegation, that a party desires further time to produce testimony* is not sufficient. It would tend to infinite delay.
1 Binn. 458
Latimer & Yard v. Ridge
Decided December 29, 1808
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1808-12-29
'TpHIS and a cross action by Ridge against Latimer and Tard, were referred under a rule of court to arbitrators, who found against Ridge in both suits; and the exception upon which it was now attempted to set aside the award was, that the arbitrators had refused to allow Ridge sufficient time to produce bis evidence, From the examination of one of the referees it appeared, that at their first meeting in April or May 1808, the parties were present, and certain documents…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1808-12-29
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1882
2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →