Stukey v. Stephens, Civil 2944
Decision Date | 10 February 1931 |
Docket Number | Civil 2944 |
Parties | ALVIN STUKEY and J. H. WILLIAMS, Appellants, v. ANNIE STEPHENS, Administratrix of the Estate of W. B. STEPHENS, Deceased, ROSCOE STEPHENS, RAY STEPHENS and DICK STEPHENS, Appellees |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Mojave. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment reversed and case remanded for new trial.
Mr Louis L. Wallace and Mr. John A. Ellis, for Appellants.
Mr. C G. Dolman, Mr. E. Elmo Bollinger, and Mr. E. S. Clark, for Appellees.
W. B Stephens, Roscoe Stephens, Ray Stephens and Dick Stephens hereinafter called plaintiffs, brought suit against Alvin Stukey and J. H. Williams, hereinafter called defendants, for an injunction restraining and enjoining defendants from grazing or herding or watering their livestock upon certain property named in the amended complaint. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and judgment rendered thereon against defendant Williams, and from the judgment rendered and the order denying the motion for a new trial he has appealed.
There are some sixteen assignments of error, many of which contain several subdivisions, but we think we need consider only one in determining whether or not the judgment should be affirmed. It is that the court erred in denying defendants a jury trial.
Under the law of Arizona either party to any litigation in the superior court is entitled as a matter of right and not discretion to a jury trial. Brown v. Greer, 16 Ariz. 215, 141 P. 841. This applies in equity as well as in law cases, and the fact that at present the verdict of the jury in an equity case is merely advisory does not change the rule. Brown v. Greer, supra; Donahue v. Babbitt, 26 Ariz. 542, 227 P. 995. While the court need not heed the advice of the jury, it must harken to it. Security Trust & Sav. Bank v. McClure, 29 Ariz. 325, 241 P. 515; Light v. Chandler Imp. Co., 33 Ariz. 101, 59 A.L.R. 107, 261 P. 969. This right, however, may be waived, and we have held that unless it is demanded seasonably such failure is equivalent to a waiver of a jury. Jenkins v. Skelton, 21 Ariz. 663, 192 P. 249; Mounce v. Wightman, 30 Ariz. 45, 44 A.L.R. 754, 243 P. 916. With these principles of law before us, let us examine the record to determine whether the court erred in refusing defendants a jury trial.
On examining the judgment-roll, we find that on the seventh day of April, 1928, and before the case was at issue, the following written request was duly filed in the superior court:
It does not appear from the record that any further reference was made to the question as to whether or not the case should be tried by a jury until the matter came up on the second day of April, 1929, for trial. Some preliminary law questions were first determined by the trial judge then present, after which the following conversation took place between counsel and the court:
The case was then tried before the court sitting without a jury.
We are of the opinion this was error. Section 3802, Revised...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Neil
...it is aimed be entirely free from either charge." Stephens v. Stephens, 17 Arig. 306, 309, 152 P. 164, 165 (1915) In a criminal action, the Stephens decision has been cited by our Supreme Court in support of the statement that the defendant has a '* * * peremptory challenge to the (trial) j......
-
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Southwest Kenworth, Inc.
...the jury is always advisory yet this has been held to be sufficient to afford the parties the right to a jury trial. Stukey v. Stephens, 37 Ariz. 514, 295 P. 973 (1931); Mozes v. Daru, 4 Ariz.App. 385, 420 P.2d 957 The central question before us on this issue is whether the trial court acte......
-
Carrillo v. Taylor
...jurisdiction that in an equity matter 'While the court need not heed the advice of the jury, it must harken to it.' Stukey v. Stephens, 37 Ariz. 514, 516, 295 P. 973, 974. The final decision being that of the court, all presumptions are in support of its judgment and the appellate court in ......
-
Hammontree v. Kenworthy, 2
...by Ch. 125 of the Laws of 1921. (Paragraph 508 of the 1913 Code is shown as 'omitted' in the Tables of A.R.S.1956.) Stukey v. Stephens (1931), 37 Ariz. 514, 295 P. 973, follows the broad statement of law contained in the Security Trust case, and holds that one party is entitled to rely upon......