Oligschlager v. Stephenson
| Decision Date | 14 September 1909 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 74 |
| Citation | 104 P. 345,1909 OK 230,24 Okla. 760 |
| Parties | OLIGSCHLAGER v. STEPHENSON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. COURTS--Verdict--Assent of Required Number of Jurors. Under that part of section 19, art. 2, Snyder's Ann. Const. Okla., which reads, five jurors concurring may return a valid verdict in a civil action in the county court, provided the verdict is in writing, and is signed by each juror concurring therein.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Equal Protection of the Law--Attorney's Fee--Actions for Personal Services. Section 1, c. 87 (section 6915), Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, providing for an attorney's fee, where an action is brought by any laborer, clerk, servant, nurse, or other person for compensation for personal services, to be recovered as costs, is in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States and void.
Error from Garfield County Court; James B. Cullison, Judge.
Action by Albert Stephenson against Peter Oligschlager. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Modified.
Dan Huett, for plaintiff in error.
¶1 This was an action based upon a contract entered into between the defendant in error, plaintiff below, and the plaintiff in error, defendant below, by the terms of which the plaintiff was to perform certain labor for the defendant, for which services the defendant agreed to pay him the sum of $ 25. The cause was tried to a jury in the county court of Garfield county, and, after the evidence was all in, the court gave the following instruction:
"Gentlemen of the jury, you are instructed that under the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma six men constitute a legal jury in the county court; that in civil and criminal cases less than felonies three-fourths of the whole number of jurors concurring shall have power to render a verdict; that in this court five jurors agreeing upon a verdict will be deemed sufficient; and that when five jurors only agree upon a verdict the five jurors so agreeing must each sign the verdict."
¶2 A verdict in favor of the plaintiff, signed by five of the jurors, was returned, upon which the court entered judgment, and included in the judgment for costs an item of $ 15 as a fee for plaintiff's attorney.
¶3 The questions presented by the record to this court for settlement are: (1) Is a verdict of a jury in a county court signed by five jurors a valid verdict? (2) Was it error for the court to tax the sum of $ 15 as costs against the defendant as an attorney's fee for plaintiff's counsel? Section 19, art. 2, Snyder's Ann. Const., reads in part as follows:
¶4 Counsel for plaintiff in error argues in his brief that:
"It is clear that three-fourths of six jurors could never return a verdict, and, if it had been intended that five of the six jurors could render a verdict, it would have been easy to have said so; hence we are led to the conclusion that the clause in section 19 of the Constitution, above cited, * * * does not apply to a jury of six men in county courts, or in a justice of the peace court, and was never so intended."
¶5 We do not agree with counsel. It was the purpose of the constitutional convention and the people who adopted the Constitution to ameliorate somewhat the law's delay, and avoid, as far as was consistent with the inviolability of the jury system, hung juries in civil and the lesser grades of criminal cases. The case at bar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consol. Cut Stone Co. v. Seidenbach
...in the event of his success. See Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okla. 275, 96 P. 630, 17 Ann. Cas. 277, and Oligschlager v. Stephenson, 24 Okla. 760, 104 P. 345. It is the duty of a court in construing a statute to adopt a construction which will avoid grave doubts or uncertainty ......
-
Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. Wryn
...attorney's fee as part of the cost (C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okla. 275, 96 P. 630, 17 Ann. Cas. 277, and Oligschlager v. Stephenson, 24 Okla. 760, 104 P. 345) is involved, and in said last-named case Chief Jusice Kane said:"The rule seems to be that, where the penalty has been ......
-
Nitsche v. State Sec. Bank of Zanesville
...and reason for the decision of C., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okla. 275, 96 P. 630, 17 Ann. Cas. 277; and Oligschlager v. Stephenson, 24 Okla. 760, 104 P. 345, do not condemn this conclusion. ¶20 In the latter case the court said:"The rule seems to be that, where the penalty has been ......
-
Ardmore Hotel Co. v. J. B. Klein Iron & Foundry Co.
...cites the decisions of this court in the cases of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okla. 275, 96 P. 630; Oligschlager v. Stephenson, 24 Okla. 760, 104 P. 345; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Phelps, Judge, 28 Okla. 333, 114 P. 695. ¶26 The statute construed in the Mashore Case, sup......