Robinson

This action was brought for declaratory relief, for cancellation of two promissory notes, and for an accounting if a trust were found to exist, or, in the alternative, for a money judgment. Defendant filed a cross-complaint, seeking a money judgment on two book accounts. Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial was refused, and after trial by the court without a jury judgment was entered against plaintiffs on their complaint and for defendant on her cross- complaint. Plaintiffs contend on this appeal that the court erred in denying them a jury trial.

[1] The issues raised by the complaint were both equitable and legal in nature and those raised by the cross-complaint were solely legal in character. It is settled in this state that where legal and equitable issues are joined in the same action the parties are entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues. (Connell v. Bowes, 19 Cal.2d 870 [ 122 P.2d 456 ]; Crouser v. Boice, 51 Cal.App.2d 198 [ 124 P.2d 358 ]; Hutchason v. Marks, 54 Cal.App. 2d 113 [ 128 P.2d 573 ].)

[2] It is argued, however, that plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial was defective in that it failed to specify the legal issues to be tried by the jury.…

This action was brought for declaratory relief, for cancellation of two promissory notes, and for an accounting if a trust were found to exist, or, in the alternative, for a money judgment. Defendant filed a cross-complaint, seeking a money judgment on two book accounts. Plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial was refused, and after trial by the court without a jury judgment was entered against plaintiffs on their complaint and for defendant on her cross-complaint. Plaintiffs contend on this appeal that the court erred in denying them a jury trial.

The issues raised by the complaint were both equitable and legal in nature and those raised by the cross-complaint were solely legal in character. It is settled in this state that where legal and equitable issues are joined in the same *666 action the parties are entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues. (Connell v. Bowes, 19 Cal.2d 870 [ 122 P.2d 456 ]; Crouser v. Boice, 51 Cal.App.2d 198 [ 124 P.2d 358 ]; Hutchason v. Marks, 54 Cal.App.2d 113 [ 128 P.2d 573 ].)

It is argued, however, that plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial was defective in that it failed to specify the legal issues to be tried by the jury. Defendant relies on Meek…

I concur in the judgment. I cannot agree, however, with that part of the majority opinion holding that the store books and the two other books reflecting the financial transactions between Puls and the plaintiff are admissible in evidence in absence of proof that the entries on which defendants rely were made at or near the time of the transactions in question. Section 1953f of the Code of Civil Procedure, enacted in this state in 1941 as part of the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act provides: “A record of an act, condition or event shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, *670 the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.” (Italics added.) This statute not only requires preliminary proof in all cases that the record was made “at or near the time” of the transaction, it also vests in the trial court authority to determine, before such records are admitted in evidence,…