Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. 112

Exline v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

Assumpsit for work and labor done at defendants’ request. At the trial, defendants requested a jury, which the Court refused, and proceed to try the case, and upon the proofs, gav.e judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appealed.

Cited in Abbott (1879)’s definition of “Prescribed” · Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Prescription”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2017

12 state decisions

5018551860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Bryan, J., concurred.

¶2The third section of the first article of the Constitution provides that “ the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate for ever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law.”

¶3The fifth chapter of the Act concerning Civil Cases, (page 55, Revised Statutes,) after providing the numerous cases in which a jury shall be deemed waived, adds: “The Court may prescribe by rule what shall be deemed a waiver in other cases.”

¶4The second subdivision of the third section thus quoted is directly in conflict with the third section of the Constitution of California. The Constitution has imposed the power as well as the necessity upon the Legislature, of determining in what cases a jury trial may be waived, which cannot be transferred or delegated to any other department of *113Government. The words “ prescribed by law,” look to actual legislation upon the subject, and in no just sense can be extended to a permission of the exercise of this power to others.

¶5The right of trial by jury is too sacred in its character to be frittered away or committed to the uncontrolled caprice of every judge or magistrate in the State. Besides, the power to “ prescribe by law” is legislative, and cannot be conferred on judicial officers, as was decided by us in “ Burgoyne v. Supervisors.”

¶6Prom these reasons it follows, that, inasmuch as the appellant was refused a jury trial, in consequence of a rule of Court and not on account of any statute, that the Court below erred.

¶7Judgment reversed with costs.

/5/cal/112 · .json · Public domain