6 Wash. 156 | Wash. | 1893
The opinion of the court was delivered by
We are wholly unable to see why the appellants should not have had a continuance of this case. Their answers were placed on file, without any unreasonable delay, about May 25, 1892, and thereupon the respondent demurred to them, and the demurrer was, on June 7th, sustained as to the second affirmative defense only. Leave was given to plead further upon payment of all accrued costs, and. on June 15th an amended answer was filed, to which respondent replied the next day. Appellants then immediately, and before the cause was set for trial, moved for a continuance of the cause to the next regular session of the court upon affidavits showing that "the principal defendant, the manager of the business out of which the suit grew, and the person with whom all of the transactions were had, was necessarily, but only temporarily, absent in another state. But the court denied the motion, and, without any cause being shown for the unusual proceeding, ordered the trial to begin immediately. Necessarily, therefore, the appellants did not have a fair trial. It is not necessary that a party to an action should be in
Dunbar, C. J., and Hoyt and Scott, JJ., concur.
Anders, J., not sitting.