CONTINUANCE. The adjournment of a cause from one day to another of the same or a subsequent tenet.
The postpopenaent of the trial of a cause.
In the ancient practice, continuances were entered upon the record, and a variety of forms adapted to the different stages of the suit were in use. See 1 Chit. Pl. 455; 3' Bla. Corn. 316. The object of the continuance was to secure the further attendance of the defendant, who having once attended could not be required to attend again, unless a day was fixed. The entry of continuance became at the time mere matter of form, and is now discontinued in England And most of the states of the United States.
Before the declaration, continuance is by dies flatus press partiune; after the declaration, and be fore issue joined, by invariance; after issue joined, and before verdict, by vice-comes non misit- breve; and after verdict or demurrer, by curia mat. I. Chit. Pl. 455, 749; Bac. Abr. Pleas (P), Trial (H); Corn. Dig. Pleader (V); Steph. Pl. 64. In Ito modern use the word has the second of the two meanings given above.
Among the causes for granting a continu ance are absence of a material witness; Steinmetz v. Currie, 1 Da11. (U. S.) 270, 1 L. Ed. 132; Higginbotham v. Chamberlayne, 4 Munf. (Va.) 547 ; Eads v. State, 26 Tex. App. 69, 9 S. W. 68; Carter v. Wharton, 82 Va. 264 ; but he must have been subpoenaed ; Bone v. Hillen, 1 Mill, Const. (S. C.) 198; Parker v, Leman, 10 Tex. 116 ; Wright v. State, 18 Ga. 383 ; in many states the opposite party may prevent it by admitting that certain facts would be proved by such witness ; Smith v. Creason's Ex'rs, 5 Dana (Ky.) 298, 30 Am. Dec. 688 ; Willis v. People, 1 Scam. (Ill.) 399 ; Dominges v. State, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 475, 45 Am. Dec. 315; Nave v. Horton, 9 Ind. 563 ; Keith v. Knoche, 43 Ill. App. 161; State v. Hatfield, 72 Mo. 518 ; and the party ask ing delay is usually required to make affi davit as to the facts on which he grounds his request ; Rhea v. State, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 258; Vickers v. Hill, 1 Scam. (Ill.) 307 ; Phillips v. Reardon, 7 Ark. 256 ; People v. Baker, 1 Cal. 403 ; Smith v. Barker, 3 Day (Conn.) 280, Fed. Cas. No. 13,012 ; Ralston v. Loth ain, 18 Ind. 303 ; and, in some states, as to what he expects to prove by the witness ; Nash v. Upper Appomattox Co., 5 Gratt. (Va.) 332 ; Bailey v. Hardy, 12 111. 459 ; Sledman v. Hamilton, 4 McLean 538, Fed. Cas. No. 13,343 ; Merchant v. Bowyer, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 22 S. W. 763 ; if the opposing coun sel stipulates that the witness, if called, would so testify, a continuance is refused. In other states, an examination is made by the court; Harris v. Harris, 2 Leigh (Va.) 584 ; Irroy v. Nathan, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 68 ; as to what diligence was used to procure his presence ; St. Louis & K. C. R. Co. v. Olive, 40 Ill. App. 82 ; Weeks v. State, 31 Miss. 490 ; Fiott v. Corn., 12 Gratt. (Va.) 564 ; and it is error to grant a continuance on oral statement of counsel ; Whaley v. King, 92 Cal. 431, 28 Pac. 579; the court is not bound to grant it where it is altogether con jectural whether the witnesses are alive, and if so where they reside or if their evidence can be procured ; Lowenstein v. Greve, 50 Minn. 383, 52 N. W. 964 ; or to examine a witness not summoned ; Soper v. Manning, 158 Mass. 381, 33 N. E. 516; inability to ob
tain the evidence of a witness out of the state in season for trial, in some cases ; U. S. v. Duane, 1 Wall. Sr. 5, Fed. Cas. No. 14, 996 ; Marsh v. Hulbert, 4 McLean 364, Fed. Cas. No. 9,116 ; filing amendments to the pleadings which introduce new matter of substance ; Tourtelot v. Tourtelot, 4 Mass. 506 ; Jones v. Talbot, 4 Mo. 279 ; Taylor v. Heffner, 4 Blackf. (Incl.) 387 ; filing a bill of discovery in chancery in some cases ; Ridgely v. Campbell, 1 liar. & J. (Md.) 452 ; Hurst y. Hurst, 3 Dall. (Pa.) 512, Fed. Cas.
No. 6,929, 1 L. Ed. 700 ; detention of a par. ty in the public service ; Republica v. Mat lack, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 108, 1 L. Ed. 310; see Nones v. Edsall, 1 Wall. Jr. 189, Fed. Cas. No. 10,290; illness of counsel, sometimes; Shultz v. Moore, 1 McLean 334, Fed. Cas. No. 12,825 ; Rhode Island V. Massachusetts, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 226, 9 L. Ed. 697; State v. Adams, 5 Harring. (Del.) 107; Thompson v. Thornton, 41 Cal. 626 ; Brady v. Malone, 4 Ia. 146; Printup v. Mitchell, 19 Ga. 586; or surprise from unexpected testimony; Branch v. Du Bose, 55 Ga. 21; Childs v. State, 10 Tex. App. 183. But it is not suffi cient where it is not shown that the client'a case is prejudiced thereby ; Board of Com'rs of Tipton County v. Brown, 4 Ind. App. 288, 30 N. B. 925.
The request must be made in due season; Woods v. Young, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 237, 2 L. Ed. 607; McCourry v. Doremus, 10 N. J. L. 245; Clinton v. Hopkins, 2 Root (Conn.) 25; Smith v. Holebrook, id. 45 ; Hanna v. McKenzie, 5 B. Monr. (Ky.) 314, 43 Am. Dec. 122. It is addressed to the discretion of the court; Fiott v. Com., 12 Gratt. (Va.) 564; Scogin v. Hudspeth, 3 Mo. 123 ; Farrand v. Bouchell, Harp. (S. C.) 85; Justrobe v. Price, Harp. (S. C.) 112 ; Sheppard v. Lark, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 576 ; Cornelius v. Boucher, Breese (Ill.) 32 ; Cox v. Hart, 145 U. S. 376, 12 Sup. Ct 962, 36 L. Ed. 741; Smith v. Collins, 94 Ala. 394, 10 South. 334 ; Baumberger v. Arff, 96 Cal. 261, 31 Pac. 53; Wilkowski v. Halle, 37 Ga. 678, 95 Am. Dec. 374 ; Armour & Co. v. Kollmeyer, 161 Fed. 78, 88 C. C. A. 242; 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1110 ; without appeal; Hill v. Bishop, 2 Ala. 320 ; Babcock v. Scott, 1 How. (Miss.) 100; State v. Duncan, 28 N. C. 98 ; Magruder v. Snapp, 9 Ark. 108; Porter v. Lee, 16 Pa. 412; Simms v. Hundley, 6 How. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. Ed. 319 ; and is not reviewable on error ; Cox v. Hart, 145 U. S. 376, 12 Sup. Ct. 962, 36 L. Ed. 741; Woods v. Young, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 237, 2 L. Ed. 607; Van guilder v. Stull, 10 N. J. L. 235; but an im proper and unjust abuse of such discretion may be remedied by superior courts, in va rious ways. See Vanblaricum v. Ward, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 50 ; Fuller v. State, 1 Black!. (Ind.) 64 ; Fox v. Govan, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 157 ; Reynard v. Brecknell, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 302; Sealy v. State, 1 Ga. 213, 44 Am. Dec. 641; McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 401, 47 Am. Dec. 93; Dame v. Broad water, 9 Mo. 19; Hipp v. Bissell, 3 Tex. 18; Cole v. Choteau, 18 Ill. 439; People v. Ver• milyea, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 369; Davis & Ran kin Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Butter & Cheese Co., 84 Wis. 262, 54 N. W. 506; Isaacs v. U. S., 159 U. S. 487, 16 Sup. Ct. 51, 40 L. Ed. 229; Valdes v. Central Altagracia, 225 U. S. 58, 32 Sup. Ct. 664, 56 L. Ed. 980.