Exline v. Smith

5 Cal. 112
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 112 (Exline v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Exline v. Smith, 5 Cal. 112 (Cal. 1855).

Opinion

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

Bryan, J., concurred.

The 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.”

The 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.”

The 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 [113]*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.

The 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.”

Prom 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.

Judgment reversed with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Cannon
California Supreme Court, 2025
TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra
California Supreme Court, 2024
Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc.
8 Cal. App. 5th 1 (California Court of Appeal, 2017)
Treo @ Kettner Homeowners Ass'n v. Superior Court
166 Cal. App. 4th 1055 (California Court of Appeal, 2008)
Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court
116 P.3d 479 (California Supreme Court, 2005)
Sackett v. Santilli
146 Wash. 2d 498 (Washington Supreme Court, 2002)
Ting v. AT & T
182 F. Supp. 2d 902 (N.D. California, 2002)
Manchin v. Browning
296 S.E.2d 909 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1982)
Hawkins v. Superior Court
586 P.2d 916 (California Supreme Court, 1978)
Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Darmstaetter
287 N.W. 59 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
Shute v. Frohmiller
90 P.2d 998 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1939)
Duran v. Pickwick Stages System
35 P.2d 148 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Hertter v. Addis
265 P. 298 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
People v. Metropolitan Surety Co.
128 P. 324 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Reagan v. United States
35 Ct. Cl. 90 (Court of Claims, 1900)
People ex rel. Attorney General v. Provines
34 Cal. 520 (California Supreme Court, 1868)
Tabor v. Cook
15 Mich. 322 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Cal. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exline-v-smith-cal-1855.