ROBERT R. BARROW, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
NATHANIEL B. HILL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A plaintiff sued out a writ of error to challenge a Circuit Court judgment, but appeared without counsel and based his exceptions solely on the court's refusal to grant continuances. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment with ten percent damages, holding that decisions on continuance motions are within the trial court's sound discretion and cannot be assigned as error on appeal, and further finding that the writ of error was issued for purposes of delay rather than to obtain material evidence.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is brought up by a writ of error, directed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. No counsel has appeared in this court for the plaintiff in error. The case ha's been calléd in its regular order for argument, and thereupon the counsel for the defendant has, under the 19th rule of the court, opened the record and argued the case, and prays an affirmance-of the judgment, with ten per cent, damages, on the ground that the writ of error was issued merely for delay.
Upon looking into the record, it appears that two exceptions were taken in the court below by the plaintiff in error; and both of them were taken-to the refusal of the court to continue the case to the next term.
It has been repeatedly decided in this court, that -a motion for the continuance of the cause addresses itself to the sound judicial discretion of the court, and its decision, for or against the motion,.cannot be assigned as error in this court. The rule is so familiar in practice, that it is unnecessary to refer to cases to prove it. The decision of the Circuit Court, therefore, upon the motions above mentioned, is no ground for reversing the judgment, and does not afford any reasonable foundation for-suing out this writ of error. And, upon examining, the statement in the exceptions, and the reasons assigned by the court for its refusal, the inference would seem to be irresistible, that the continuance was not asked for by the plaintiff in error, under the expectation that it would enable him to obtain testimony material to his defence, biit to delay the payment of'a just debt, and that the writ of error was sujed out for the' same purpose. The case, therefore, falls within the 17th rule of the court, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed, with ten per cent, interest on the amount, from the rendition of the judgment in the Circuit Court until paid.
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United State?-for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel for the defendant in error. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that, the judgment of the said Circuit Court, in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs and with interest, at' the rate, of ten-per centum per annum on the amount, from the rendition of the judgment in the Circuit Court until paid.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1895)…s purely a matter of discretion, and not subject to review by. this court, unless it be clearly shown that such discretion has been abused, is settled by too many authorities to be now open to question. Woods v. Young, 4 Cranch, 237; Barrow v. Hill, 13 How. 54; Crumpton v. United States, 138 U. S. 361; Cox v. Hart, 145 U. S. 376; Earnshaw v. United States, 146 U. S. 60, 68; Means v. Bank of Randall, 146 U. S. 620. It appears that forty-nine days before the case was called for trial, an application was mad…