Case ID: cow_5/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     \n      \n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anonymous.
    The excuse for not noticing a motion for the 1st day of ¡^¡vé’n’hi affidavits served.
    To warrant denying a ref-ground °“ that questions of law will anse, tho court must be satisfied ¡tcf1 Cuestiona of real difficu1t>‘
    Assumpsit. Craig moved for a reference, on a notice of motion for Friday, the second week in term. J1
    
    
      T. A. Emmet, contra,
    objected that the notice should have been for the first day in term.
    
      Craig read an affidavit showing an excuse for not notieing for an earlier day. This excuse, he said, was contained in the affidavit of service.
    
      Emmet said the affidavit of excuse should have been served with the other papers, so that it might be denied. But,
   Per Curiam.

The constant practice is otherwise. The excuse is for the court, not for the party; and may De shown at the time of moving.

Emmet then read an affidavit, showing that certain questions of law would arise before the referees, specifying them. These would arise under the plea of the statute of limitations.

Curia.

The questions which you stale are of easy soluqon_ Questions of law may, and to a certain extent, must arise on every reference. We must be' satisfied, however, that they are questions of real difficulty, to warrant our denying a reference on this ground. The doctrine of evidence upon the plea of the statute of limitations, is, in general, very well settled.

Motion denied.