Guardianship of Lovern

70 P. 783, 137 Cal. 680, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 633
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 26, 1902
DocketS.F. No. 2400.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 P. 783 (Guardianship of Lovern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Guardianship of Lovern, 70 P. 783, 137 Cal. 680, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 633 (Cal. 1902).

Opinion

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.

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

Related

Slaughter v. Zimman
234 P.2d 94 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Ross v. Thirlwall
281 P. 714 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 P. 783, 137 Cal. 680, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guardianship-of-lovern-cal-1902.