Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Blackf. 50

Vanblaricum v. Ward

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1819

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1819-11-09

— Trespass against Vanblaricum for an assault and battery. Plea, son assault demesne. Replication, de injuria. The defendant below moved for a continuance of the cause upon an affidavit of the absence of witnesses, &e. The motion was overruled, and the proceedings thereon made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions. — ■ Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the Circuit Court. The refusal of the Court to grant the continuance, was the only error assigned.

Relies on Higginbotham v. Chamberlayne

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1819-11-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1900

8 state decisions

301819182018301840185018601870188018901900decided

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 →

Scott, J.

¶1On the subject of this case there have been various decisions. We consider a motion for a continuance, as an application to the sound, legal discretion of the Court, over which, if improperly used, a Superior Court will exercise a control. The rules and practice of Courts are now so well settled, that we are not left to vague uncertainty in this, more than in other principles of common law. There are many cases in which a party, without any laches on his part, may, by the unexpected absence of a witness, be placed in such a situation, that, without a continuance, he cannot possibly obtain his right; and to refuse a continuance in such cases, is tantamount to a refusal of justice. The case cited, 6 Cranch, 218(1), places a motion for a-continuance on the same footing with a motion for a new trial; and there appears to be no good reason for a distinction. It has been decided by (his Court, that a refusal to grant a new trial may be assigned for error (2). A. refusal to grant a continuance maybe assigned for error also.

¶2The affidavit in this case is substantially good, and the Court erred in refusing a continuance.

Per Curiam,

¶3The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings up to the motion for a continuance are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion.

¶4The M. I. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson. According to that case, the refusal to allow a plea to be amended, or a new plea to be filed, or to grant a new trial, or to continue a cause, cannot be assigned as error. In Fa., the refusal to grant a continuance, may be assigned for error. Higginbotham v. Chamberlayne, 4 Munf. 547. So also in Ky., Smith v. Snoddy, 2 Marsh. 382. — Davis v. Gray, 3 Littell, 451.

¶5Goldsby v. Robertson, ante, p. 21.

/1/blackf/50 · .json · Public domain