Bracka v. Fish
| Decision Date | 23 April 1902 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | BRACKA v. FISH et ux. |
Appeal from superior court, Spokane county.
Action by A. A. Bracka against William H. Fish and wife. From an order granting defendants a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Robertson, Miller & Rosenhaupt, for appellant.
W. W. Thornoton, for respondents.
This cause was before this court on appeal, and is reported in 23 Wash. 646, 63 P. 561, and there reversed and remanded for further proceedings. It appears that after the remittitur was returned to the superior court the counsel for respondents withdrew from the cause, and that the cause was noted for trial thereafter by counsel for appellant, and notice by mail given to the respondents of the setting of the cause. On the day the cause was set for trial, respondents moved to vacate the order setting the cause for trial. This motion was based upon affidavits. Upon the hearing the motion was refused. A continuance was then prayed on the ground that the respondents were not prepared for trial. The court refused the continuance and directed the trial, and, upon the introduction of testimony, discharged the jury and entered judgment in favor of the appellant. Defendant moved for a new trial. The motion for a new trial and affidavits in support thereof set up substantially the same facts that were urged against the setting of the cause for trial, and in the request for a continuance because respondents were not prepared for trial. The court granted the motion for a new trial, from which appellants have appealed. From an inspection of the record, we are satisfied that the order granting the new trial is entirely within the discretion of the superior court, and it will not be reviewed here.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N. E. Redlon Co. v. Franklin Square Corp., 3269.
...time prior to final judgment. Barry v. Mutual Life Ins. Company, 53 N.Y. 536; King v. Rockhill, 41 N.J.Eq. 273, 7 A. 437; Bracka v. Fish, 28 Wash. 410, 68 P. 872; Baltimore, etc., Company v. Ray, 36 Ind.App. 430, 73 N.E. 942; Louisville, etc., Company v. Scarbrough, 208 Ky. 79, 270 S.W. 494......
-
Colvin v. Northern P. Ry. Co.
... ... when there was a substantial conflict in the evidence ... submitted to the jury. To the same effect are Bracka v ... Fish, 28 Wash. 410, 68 P. 872; Latimer v ... Black, 24 Wash. 231, 64 P. 176; Welever v. Advance ... Shingle Co., 34 Wash ... ...