Case Name: Cataerine Finan vs. Bernard Millmore et al.
Court: Manistee County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1869-12
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. 172
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cataerine Finan vs. Bernard Millmore et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 172–172

Head Matter:
Cataerine Finan vs. Bernard Millmore et al.
Millmorb had suits pending in different courts, on call about the same time. His presence at both places appeared necessary. On motion, held that the cause last noticed for trial should be continued.
Manistee Circuit Court,
December, 1869.
L. Pattison and B. W. Bunnett for Plaintiff.
Benedict, Rollins and Outcheon for Defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Ramsdell, J.
The defendant in this case, is also defenda nt in a case pending in the U. S. District Court, for the District of Wisconsin. The cases in the two courts are on call for about the same time. The defendant's affidavit for a continuance, shows that his presence and testimony is necessary on the trial in both courts.
He is bound by the first notice of trial served, and the first notice having come from th#e H. S. Court, that is sufficient grounds for a continuance in this court.