Linville v. Golding

Indiana Supreme Court

Linville v. Golding

11 Ind. 374

DecidedDecember 16, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Ind. 374 (Linville v. Golding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Linville v. Golding, 11 Ind. 374 (Ind. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Counsel for appellant present but one [375]*375point, which is upon the ruling of the Court on a motion, &c., to continue. The affidavit presented appears to be in accordance with the provision of the statute, § 322, 2 R. S. p. 108. Upon that affidavit a continuance should have been granted.

M. M. Ray and T. A. McFarland, for the appellant.

The record states that the continuance was refused on the counter-affidavit of the plaintiff. Counter-affidavits should not have been received.

The judgment is reversed with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Counsel for appellant present but one [375]*375point, which is upon the ruling of the Court on a motion, &c., to continue. The affidavit presented appears to be in accordance with the provision of the statute, § 322, 2 R. S. p. 108. Upon that affidavit a continuance should have been granted.

M. M. Ray and T. A. McFarland, for the appellant.

The record states that the continuance was refused on the counter-affidavit of the plaintiff. Counter-affidavits should not have been received.

The judgment is reversed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Ind. 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linville-v-golding-ind-1858.