Guardianship of Lovern
In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Person and Estate of S. S. LOVERN, an Incompetent. NELLIE PAULSEL, Appellant, v. S. S. LOVERN, and Guardian, Respondents
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
GAROUTTE, J.
This appeal is taken from an order restoring one Lovern to mental capacity under the provisions of section 1766 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time set for the hearing of the matter, a daughter of the incapacitated Lovern appeared by attorney and asked for a continuance, in order that thereafter she might oppose the application. Her motion for a continuance was refused, and this appeal upon her part is largely based upon that order of refusal.
In all cases the action of the trial court in granting or refusing a continuance is more or less a matter of discretion. But it is essentially a matter of discretion in a case of the character here presented. In this ease, at the time set for the trial, the daughter appeared by attorney and made her application wholly unsupported by any legal showing. Certainly no claim of error can be predicated upon an order denying her motion under these circumstances.
The attorney for the daughter asked during the progress of the trial to place certain witnesses upon the stand, naming them. This application was denied. There is no showing as to the character of the evidence these witnesses would have given, if sworn to testify, and, even conceding the attorney’s *682 right to offer evidence at the hearing, it will not be assumed by this court for the purpose of overthrowing the order made, that those witnesses would have given evidence in opposition to that order.
For the foregoing reasons the order is affirmed.
Harrison, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.