Parrish v. Gardner

Superior Court of Delaware

Parrish v. Gardner

3 Del. 495

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1842·Published

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.

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

Pincite

3 Del. 495 (Parrish v. Gardner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.