Ladd v. Culbertson

Decided June 6, 1910

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1910-06-06

— Hon. John G. Park, Judge. The court erred in refusing defendant’s application .for a continuance, the same showing full compliance with terms of the statutes, section 685, Revised Statutes 1899. McClane v. Harris, 1 Mo. 700; Moore et al. v. McCullough, 6 Mo. 448; Dome v. Broad Water, 9 Mo. 19; Truststall v. Hamilton, 8 Mo. 501; Barnum v. Adams, 31 Mo. 532; Alt. v. Grosclose, 61 Mo. App. 409; Nichols v. Grocer Co., 66 Mo.

Relies on 33 Mo. App. 60 - Soderberg v. Pierce

Affirmed · Decided 1910-06-06

ELLISON, J.

¶1This action was instituted to recover judgment on two promissory notes. The judgment in the circuit court was for the plaintiff.

¶2 *124Defendant made written application for a continuance on the ground of the absence of witnesses. It was overruled, and for the alleged error in that ruling' this appeal is prosecuted. Among other things required by the statute (sec. 685, R. S. 1899) to be stated when a continuance is desired, is that “such application is not made for vexation or delay, but in good faith for the purpose of obtaining a fair and impartial trial.” This important statement is wholly omitted from the application and the continuance was therefore properly refused. [Soderberg v. Pierce, 33 Mo. App. 60.]

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.