Case ID: ind_11/html/0374-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linville v. Golding.
    
      Thursday, December 16.
    APPEAL from the Shelby Court of Common Pleas.
   Per Curiam.

Counsel for appellant present but one point, which is upon the ruling of the Court on a motion, &c., to continue. The affidavit presented appears to be in accordance with the provision of the statute, § 322, 2 R. S. p. 108. Upon that affidavit a continuance should have been granted.

M. M. Ray and T. A. McFarland, for the appellant.

The record states that the continuance was refused on the counter-affidavit of the plaintiff. Counter-affidavits should not have been received.

The judgment is reversed with costs.