Case Name: LEVY v. BALDWIN
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1885-07-31
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 509
Docket Number: No. 8980
Parties: LEVY v. BALDWIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
LEVY v. BALDWIN.
No. 8980;
July 31, 1885.
7 Pac. 683.
Pleading—Amendment to Answer—Postponement for.—Court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse a second postponement of a trial, or may refuse an amendment to the answer asked for at the trial.
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
Lloyd & Wood for appellant; William H. Sharp for respondent.

Opinion:
By the COURT.
The court properly exercised its discretion in refusing a second postponement of the trial, and refusing the amendment to the answer asked for at the trial. The charge of the court was correct, and the request to charge was properly refused. We find no error in admitting the evidence of plaintiff that the stock mentioned in the complaint was purchased for defendant through E. H. Hall & Co.
There is no error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.