Riggs v. Fenton

Citation3 Mo. 28
PartiesRIGGS v. FENTON.
Decision Date30 April 1831
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

APPEAL FROM BCONE CIRCUIT COURT

WASH, J.

This was an action of assumpsit by Fenton v. Riggs, to recover a sum of money received by Riggs to the use of Fenton, in the province of New Mexico, to be brought here and paid over to Fenton. At the trial term of the cause in June, 1830, Riggs applied for and obtained a continuance upon an affidavit, stating in the terms of the statute, that material witnesses were absent, &c. At the October term, 1830, Riggs again applied for a continuance, and stated in his affidavit (in addition to the facts shown on the first application), the facts which he expected to prove by the absent witness, and the exertions made use of to obtain their testimony. The Circuit Court refused the continuance, and ruled the defendant to trial, wherein Fenton obtained a verdict and judgment, to reverse which Riggs has come into this court. Riggs stated in his second affidavit, “that Walter Graham, one of the witnesses, on account of whose absence in part, a continuance of this cause was granted at the last term, has not since said term returned to the State of Missouri, from the Territory of New Mexico. This affiant confidently believes he will be in the county of Chariton, in this State, the place of his residence, in a few days, and that he is now on his return from New Mexico, with a company of traders now returning from that country. That he has continued in that country ever since the last term of this court. That this affiant has had no opportunity of taking his deposition since the last term of this court, there having been no communication between that country and this, known to this defendant since that time. This affiant believes he can procure the attendance of said witness at the next term of this court. This affiant expects and believes that he can prove by said witness that this affiant, when he received the money in the province of New Mexico now sued for, that he was not to be accountable to the plaintiff for any risk in bringing the same to this State. That he was, in the transportation of the same to this State, to use the same means as he did in relation to his own, and that this affiant was not to be responsible to the said Fenton for the money, until the same was brought to this State, or received in this State by this affiant. That he does not know that he can prove the same facts by any other witness. And this affiant further states, that Congreve Jackson of Howard county, in this State, is a material witness for this affiant. That said Jackson has been subpœnaed since the last...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 16, 1909
    ...65 Ga. 94;Brown v. State, 65 Ga. 332;Matthews v. Bates, Kingsbury & Co., 93 Ga. 317, 20 S. E. 320;Salisbury v. Commw., 79 Ky. 425;Riggs v. Fenton, 3 Mo. 28;State v. Murdy, 81 Iowa, 603, 47 N. W. 867;St. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. Woolum, 84 Tex. 570, 19 S. W. 782;Walt v. Walsh, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) ......
  • State v. Schooley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 2, 1929
    ...to inquire into the facts of each case and reverse the case if the continuance was improperly refused. McLane v. Harris, 1 Mo. 501; Riggs v. Fenton, 3 Mo. 28; Tunstall Hamilton, 8 Mo. 500; State v. Wood, 68 Mo. 444; State v. McGuire, 69 Mo. 197; State v. Walker, 69 Mo. 274; State v. Farrow,......
  • State v. Schooley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 2, 1929
    ...to inquire into the facts of each case and reverse the case if the continuance was improperly refused. McLane v. Harris, 1 Mo. 501; Riggs v. Fenton, 3 Mo. 28; Tunstall v. Hamilton, 8 Mo. 500; State v. Wood, 68 Mo. 444; State v. McGuire, 69 Mo. 197; State v. Walker, 69 Mo. 274: State v. Farr......
  • Matthews v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 23, 1898
    ...... procure his evidence, such refusal constitutes reversible. error. McLean v. Harris, 1 Mo. 501; Riggs v. Fenton, 3 Mo. 28; Moore v. McCullock, 6 Mo. 444; Tunstall v. Hamilton, 8 Mo. 500; McKay v. State, 12 Mo. 492; Barnum v. Adams, 31 Mo. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT