Smith v. Barker

22 F. Cas. 454, 3 Day 280
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
DecidedSeptember 15, 1808
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 F. Cas. 454 (Smith v. Barker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Barker, 22 F. Cas. 454, 3 Day 280 (circtdct 1808).

Opinion

Livingston, J.

When an affidavit is relied upon, the court will not go out of it. I shall, therefore, decline hearing any ore tenus explanation.

The name of the witness must always be disclosed in the affidavit, unless there are circumstances to show that the party, without any fault of his, was unable to learn his name.

Hereafter, when a cause is ready for trial, no application for a continuance will be successful, unless upon an affidavit conformable to the English practice. His honour remarked upon the inconveniences of putting off a cause ready for trial, in this court; and said, the English courts, and the courts in those states which follow the English practice, were growing more strict upon this subject.

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

Related

Brooklyn Oil Works v. Brown
7 Abb. Pr. 382 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 F. Cas. 454, 3 Day 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-barker-circtdct-1808.