Mesenburg

Mesenburg v. Dunn

Good Law
125 Cal. 222·1899 Cal. LEXIS 832·57 P. 887
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 23, 1899S. F. No. 1055California405 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff; and the only point made for a reversal is that the court erroneously denied appellant’s demand for a jury trial.

It is averred in the complaint that plaintiff was induced by false representations, which are set forth, to enter into certain written contracts with defendant by which he agreed to purchase certain lands from the defendant, and that he paid to defendant as a part of the purchase price the sum of seven hundred and sixty dollars; and he prays for a decree of the court declaring said contracts null and void; and also that he have judgment for said seven hundred and sixty dollars. The demand for a jury was general and embraced the whole case, the language being, “demands a jury and that said cause be tried by a jury.” The main purpose of the action, to wit, to have the contracts declared null and void, clearly brought that part of the action within equitable jurisdiction; and under no view was the defendant entitled to have the whole case tried by a jury. But, waiving that point, his demand for a jury was, upon general principles, properly denied. The recovery of the part payment made under the…

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.