Cohen v. Havard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Cohen v. Havard

5 Mart. (N.S.) 212

DecidedOctober 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Mart. (N.S.) 212 (Cohen v. Havard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Havard, 5 Mart. (N.S.) 212 (La. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This appeal is from the refusal of the district court of a continuance.

The defendant swore that Mrs. Havard was a material witness—that the plaintiff resides in another state and his attorney has been absent from this, and consequently the defendant could not give him notice—that the defendant hopes to prove by her the precise time of the death of her husband, as whose bail he is sued.

The plaintiff’s attorney offered to admit the facts, as the defendant swore his witness could prove them.

It appears to us the affidavit was insufficient. Notice to a party, or to his attorney, of the taking of a deposition, need not be personal; it may, like any other, be left at his domicil. It is not shewn how long the attorney was absent; no diligence is said to have been exercised.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This appeal is from the refusal of the district court of a continuance.

The defendant swore that Mrs. Havard was a material witness—that the plaintiff resides in another state and his attorney has been absent from this, and consequently the defendant could not give him notice—that the defendant hopes to prove by her the precise time of the death of her husband, as whose bail he is sued.

The plaintiff’s attorney offered to admit the facts, as the defendant swore his witness could prove them.

It appears to us the affidavit was insufficient. Notice to a party, or to his attorney, of the taking of a deposition, need not be personal; it may, like any other, be left at his domicil. It is not shewn how long the attorney was absent; no diligence is said to have been exercised.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Mart. (N.S.) 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-havard-la-1826.