113 F. 48 | 2d Cir. | 1902
This is a writ of error by the plaintiff in the court below to review a judgment for the defendant taken by default because of the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the time the cause was moved for trial. The assignments of error challenge the action of the court below in refusing the application of the plaintiff to postpone the cause, and denying a motion made by him subsequently to the dismissal of the complaint to open his default.
A writ of error will not reach rulings involving an exercise of discretion unless the discretion has been abused. The refusal to postpone a trial is within the rule. Means v. Bank, 146 U. S. 620, 13 Sup. Ct. 186, 36 L. Ed. 1107; Isaacs v. U. S., 159 U. S. 487, 16 Sup. Ct. 51, 40 L. Ed. 229; Goldsby v. U. S., 160 U. S. 70, 16 Sup. Ct. 216, 40 L. Ed. 343. So, also, is the refusal to reinstate a cause. Welch v. Mandeville, 7 Cranch, 152, 3 L. Ed. 299. Upon the facts in the record, so far from there having been an abuse of sound discretion by the court below, its rulings were amply justified.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.