Mandeville, Brooks & Chaffee v. Fritz
| Decision Date | 11 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 574, 575.,s. 574, 575. |
| Parties | MANDEVILLE, BROOKS & CHAFFEE et al v. FRITZ. SAME v. FLINT. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.
Two separate actions by Mandeville, Brooks & Chaffee and others against Alexander Fritz and against Rose H. Flint. The case was transferred to Supreme Court on certified questions.
Questions answered.
Sherwood, Heltzen & Clifford and Sidney Clifford, all of Providence, for plaintiffs.
Hinckley, Allen, Tillinghast, Phillips & Wheeler, Abbott Phillips, and Roger T. Clapp, all of Providence, for defendants.
In each of these cases the same constitutional question is certified to us under General Laws 1923, chapter 348, § 1. Defendants assert that Public Laws 1929, chapter 1327, General Laws 1923, chapter 337, § 6, violates section 15 of article 1 of the Constitution of Rhode Island providing that "the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate."
The question whether said statute is repugnant to article 14 of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States is not presented by the certification, and defendant's argument thereon is not considered.
The actions were assumpsit returnable to the superior court December 14, 1929. Bach declaration showed plaintiff's claim to be on book account. By chapter 337, § 4, G. L. 1923, "assignment-day for trial or other disposition" was January 4, 1930. On that and other days, orders concerning pleadings were entered and complied with, and on February 14, 1930, the parties were at issue.
Each defendant then moved to assign the case for jury trial. Each motion was denied on the ground that jury trial had been waived because the abovementioned chapter 1327 provides that "if neither party files a written claim for a jury trial at any time before its assignment day, then jury trial shall be deemed to be waived in such case, and * * * the court shall hear, try and determine the said case both as to the law and as to the facts and render decision therein. * * *"
Reasonable conditions may be placed upon the exercise of the right to claim a jury trial. Mathews v. Tripp, 12 R. I. 256; Mathewson v. Ham, 21 R. I. 311, 43 A. 848; Houle v. Lussier, 50 R. I. 339, 147 A. 756; 35 C. J. 210, 213.
Defendants' contention is that requirement of written claim for jury trial on or before assignment day in these cases was an unreasonable and arbitrary condition because it compelled a written claim for jury trial, if desired by defendant, before the issues were settled and the details of plaintiff's claim made known; that such requirement deprived them of right to trial by jury.
Defendants were not denied the right of jury trial; they were forced to choose before the issues were joined. Some states have framed their statutes to permit delay in demanding jury trial until issues have been reached. 35 C. J. 213. From a constitutional point of view, however, the only necessity is that a litigant be given a reasonable opportunity to claim jury trial.
Assignment day is a settled statutory day for each case. It is positively fixed for procedural purposes. General Laws 1923, chapter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Advisory Opinion to Senate
...shall constitute a petit jury. And I do not wish to be understood as overlooking the holding of this court in Mandeville, Brooks & Chaffee v. Fritz, 50 R.I. 513, 149 A. 859, and in Dyer v. Keefe, 97 R.I. 418, 198 A.2d 159, in which this court held that the Legislature has a right to impose ......
-
Lucky Ned Pepper's Ltd. v. Columbia Park and Recreation Ass'n
...102 Ohio App. 416, 143 N.E.2d 860 (1956) (can require written jury trial demand, even in criminal cases); Mandeville, Brooks and Chaffee v. Fritz, 50 R.I. 513, 149 A. 859 (1930) (can require that demand for a jury trial be filed by certain time). See also 47 Am.Jur.2d, Jury § 12 (1969); 50 ......
-
Bond & Goodwin, Inc. v. Weiner
...jury and the assignment day had passed when decision was entered. It was then too late to claim a trial by jury. Mandeville, Brooks & Chaffee v. Fritz, 50 R I. 513, 149 A. 859; Houle v. Lussier, 50 R. I. 339, 147 A. 756; Orr v. Superior Court, 52 R I. 335, 161 A. 139; Kilvert v. Superior Co......
-
Oliveira v. Santosuosso, 10812
...authority to place reasonable conditions upon the exercise of one's right to a trial by jury in a civil case. Mandeville, Brooks & Chaffee v. Fritz, 50 R.I. 513, 149 A. 859. It is our opinion that the use of the terms 'prosecution' or 'arraignment' does not modify in the slightest degree th......