McAulay

McAulay v. Tahoe Ice Co.

Good Law
1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 279·3 Cal. App. 642·86 P. 912
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 23, 1906Civ. No. 221.California2,073 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Action for personal services as agent of defendant. The cause was tried before a jury and, after deliberation, the jury returned into court and, being asked if they had agreed upon a verdict, answered they had. Before the amendment or recording thereof, the judge of the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the jury fees of $92, whereupon “counsel for plaintiff stated that plaintiff was unable to pay said jury fee.”

The court then “ordered that plaintiff be granted ten days within which to pay the jury fee, and, if not paid during that time, the court would enter a judgment in favor of the defendant because of the failure of said plaintiff to pay said jury fee. The jury were then excused from further service.” There was no rule of court regulating the payment of jury fees; although it was the practice of the court to require payment of the jury fee by the prevailing party before the verdict was read. Upon April 25, 1905, counsel for defendant gave notice of a motion to be heard on May 1, 1905, to dismiss said action and enter judgment for defendant upon the grounds, among others, that “ten days have elapsed since said court ordered plaintiff to pay the jury fees and the same have…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.