Case ID: mo-app_145/html/0123-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ELLISON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

N. P. LADD, Respondent, v. JERRY CULBERTSON, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    June 6, 1910.
    PRACTICE: Continuance: Affidavit. An affidavit for continuance which fails to state the statutory requirements that the application is not made for vexation or delay, but in good faith, for the purpose of obtaining a fair trial, is not sufficient, and a refusal to grant a continuance is not error.
    Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. John G. Park, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      L. N. Dempsey and Chas. W. Sloan for appellant.
    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. App. 321; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 683; State v. Maguire, 69 Mo. 204.
    
      Halbert H. McOluer for respondent.-
    Appellant’s application for a continuance was properly overruled. Riggs v. Fenton, 3 Mo. 28; Scogin v. Hudspeth, 3 Mo. 123; Blair v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 395; R. S. 1899, sec. 685; Frederick v. Rice, 46 Mo. 24; Bartholow v. Campbell, 56 Mo. 117; Cooley v. Railroad, 149 Mo. 487.
   ELLISON, J.

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

Defendant 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.]

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.