Case ID: wash_66/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 9698.
    Department One.
    December 1, 1911.]
    Geobge R. Elliott, Respondent, v. Toledo Foundry & Machine Company, Appellant.
    
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe superior court for King county, Albertson, J., entered December 20, 1910.
    Affirmed.
    
      Wesley J. Wuerfel (James T. Lawler, of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Gill, Hoyt & Frye and R. L. Blewett, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 119 Pac. 19.
    
   Per Curiam.

This appeal involves only the denial of a motion for a continuance of the trial of the case, upon the same grounds as the motion for a continuance in the case of Steenstrup v. Toledo Foundry & Machine Co., ante p. 101, 119 Pac. 16. For the reasons there stated, we conclude that there was no error in tbe denial of the motion for a continuance in this case. The judgment is therefore affirmed.