Graves v. Rayle
Graves v. Rayle and Others
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
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Under the peculiar circumstances of' this-case, we think the Court should have continued the cause.
The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, etc.
Note.—The motion for a continuance was based upon an affidavit of G. D. Murray, containing, in substance, this statement: That, at the request of the plaintiff’s attorney and Gapt. Harrison, the- late attorney of the defendant (the appellant), he appeared for the defendant in this action, and that he was informed, and believed, that Graves knew nothing of Gapt. Harrison's absence from home, or that there existed any necessity for the employment, by him, of other counsel, and that Gapt. Harrison had volunteered two months before, and was then in the army, in Western Virginia, and that he, Murray, was informed by the agent of Graves, that Graves was under, the impression that this (Howard Common Pleas) Court, did not meet in regular session until the Monday then next following, and that he, Murray, had had no opportunity of conferring with Graves, as to his defense herein. The Court refused, upon this affidavit, to grant the continuance, and rendered judgment.
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.