3 Mo. 123
Decided December 15, 1832
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1832-12-15
<p>1. A motion for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and the Court will be held to have exercised that discretion soundly, unless it appear from the record that proper diligence has been used to procure the testimony of witnesses, or good cause be shown why such diligence has not been used.</p> <p>3. Evidence that defendant had rented to plaintiff a farm on land belonging- to the U. S. for thirty barrels of com, which witness presumed was to be paid at next corn gathering time, held insufficient to support the plea of set-off and to have beers properly excluded by the Court. (Note a.)</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1884
1 state decisions
Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Continuance”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1832-12-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1dissenting.
¶2I dissent from that part of this opinion relating to the diligence the party should have used to entitle him to a continuance. In my opinion, it is not likely that any thing that could have been done between the time of the service of the process and the trial, would have availed any thing. As to the residue of the opinion, I concur.