Supreme Court of the United States, 1808

Woods v. Young

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 29, 1808

8 U.S. 237; 2 L. Ed. 607; 4 Cranch 237; 1807 U.S. LEXIS 380 (United States Reports)

Counsel

*The case was submitted to the court, without argument, by r*238 Swann, for the plaintiffs, and Youngs, for the defendant. ^

Cases that cite this one

35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Lyman v. Warner (4th Cir. 1902)
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Elliott (8th Cir. 1900)
Arlington Valley Solar Energy II LLC v. Fluor Enterprises Incorporated (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2020)
Prime Rate Premium Fin. Corp., Inc. v. Karen Larson (6th Cir. 2019)
Fitzpatrick v. State (Mont. 1981)
Waldeyer v. Wailuku Sugar Co. (Haw. 1908)
United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
Hannum v. Hill (W. Va. 1902)
Isaacs v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
Bradshaw v. Stott (D.C. Cir. 1895)
Earnshaw v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1892)
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Nelson (5th Cir. 1892)
Richmond Railway & Electric Co. v. Dick (4th Cir. 1892)
Buster v. Holland (W. Va. 1886)
McDaniel v. State (Miss. 1872)
Jameson v. Butler (Neb. 1871)
Brooklyn Oil Works v. Brown (The Superior Court of New York City 1870)
Brooklyn Oil Works v. Brown (The Superior Court of New York City 1869)
Bruch v. Carter (N.J. 1867)
Crawford v. New Jersey Railroad & Transportation Co. (N.J. 1860)
State v. Brette (La. 1851)
State v. Hunt (La. 1849)
Borden v. Houston (Tex. 1847)
Territory of Wisconsin v. Doty (Wis. 1844)
Fowler v. Colton (Wis. 1843)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

By the Court.

The question is, whether a refusal to continue a cause can be assigned for error. The impression of the court is, that it cannot. Has the party, by law, a right to a continuance in any case ? If he has, it will have weight. Is it not merely a matter of favor and discretion ? This is a case in which this court cannot look into the merits of the question, whether the court below ought to have granted a continuance of the cause.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, (a)

(a)

This case was brought up in expectation that this court would have decided the question whether an attachment can be served upon a person who resides out of the district, hut within 100 miles of the place of trial, and who has been summoned and fails to attend as a witness in a civil cause. But the court having intimated an opinion that the refusal to continue the cause, could not be assigned for error, the counsel did not argue the other point.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.