Hill v. Capital Transit Co.
135 F.2d 948, 77 U.S. App. D.C. 391, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463
Opinion
The attorney for the appellant filed a motion for continuance in the court below on the ground that his health required rest and relief from trial work for several months. The motion was denied and subsequently the case dismissed for want of prosecution. The record shows that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for continuance and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hill v. Capital Transit Co., 135 F.2d 948, 77 U.S. App. D.C. 391, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463 (D.C. Cir. 1943).
135 F.2d 948 (Hill v. Capital Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Union Storage & Transfer Co. v. Lamphere
40 A.2d 258 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1944)