Case ID: mo_46/html/0024-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Wagner, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adam Frederick, Respondent, v. Rice & Stewart, Appellants.
    1; Practice, civil — Continuances. — The ruling of tlie court below upon motions for continuances is seldom interfered with by the Supreme Court, as it is a matter resting in their discretion; and in every case the ruling is entitled to every intendment in its favor.
    2. Practice, civil — Continuances—Pules of Oircmt Court. — The rule of the St. Louis Circuit Court, which requires the party applying for a continuance to state certain things in his affidavits, is founded in wisdom, and is necessary to prevent frivolous applications and ruinous delays.
    
      Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
    
    
      M. Kinealy, for appellants.
    When a continuance has been refused in the court below, without sufficient cause, and the party has been injured thereby, the judgment will be reversed by this court. (Tunstall v. Hamilton, 8 Mo. 502 ; Barnum v. Adams, 81 Mo. 582.)
    
      Stewart & Wieting, for respondent.
    The affidavit filed in support of this motion is clearly insufficient, because it does not comply with the rule of the Circuit Court governing such applications. The allowing of a motion for continuance rests largely with the discretion of the court hearing the same, and this discretion will not be interfered with unless it has been unsoundly exercised. (Carpenter v. Meyers, 32 Mo. 213 ; State, to use of Peters, v. Shreve, 39 Mo. 90; Freligh v. Ames, 31 Mo. 253 ; Freligh v. The State, 8 Mo. 606.) The ruling of the court. in refusing to grant a motion for continuance, is entitled to every intendment in its favor. (King v. Pearce, 40 Mo. 222.)
   Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon an examination of this record, we perceive but one question that is entitled to any consideration, and that is the action of the court in refusing to grant a continuance. It seems that the Circuit Court has a rule, which has been certified up as a part of this case, which requires the party applying for a continuance to state certain things in his affidavit. In the making of the affidavit this rule was not complied with.

The ruling of the lower courts upon motions for continuance is seldom interfered with, as it is a matter resting largely in their discretion; and in every case the ruling is entitled to every intendment in its favor. The rule established by the court, to govern in its practice, is founded in wisdom, and is necessary to prevent frivolous applications and ruinous delays.

This rule was before the appellants when they made their application, and if their cause for continuance was meritorious, it would have been an easy matter to have stated such facts as would have brought them within its terms. But they did not do so, and therefore they have no reason to complain.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.