Parrish v. Gardner

Superior Court of Delaware

Parrish v. Gardner

3 Del. 495

DecidedJuly 5, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Del. 495 (Parrish v. Gardner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parrish v. Gardner, 3 Del. 495 (Del. Ct. App. 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court.

If the matter is put to the court on the ground of Ie-Bal diligence, we must refuse the application for a continuance. The Pendant was bound to take out his commission under which the *496 deposition of this witness coaid have been taken. If he chose to trust the promise of the witness and neglect taking a commission, it must be at his own risk. So if a party should trust to the promise of a resident witness without taking out subpoena.

J. A. Bayard, for plaintiff. Wales, for defendant.

The motion was refused.

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

The Court.

If the matter is put to the court on the ground of Ie-Bal diligence, we must refuse the application for a continuance. The Pendant was bound to take out his commission under which the *496 deposition of this witness coaid have been taken. If he chose to trust the promise of the witness and neglect taking a commission, it must be at his own risk. So if a party should trust to the promise of a resident witness without taking out subpoena.

J. A. Bayard, for plaintiff. Wales, for defendant.

The motion was refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Del. 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrish-v-gardner-delsuperct-1842.