O'Donnell v. Beechnut Packing Co.

D.C. Circuit

O'Donnell v. Beechnut Packing Co.

45 App. D.C. 425, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1916

DocketNo. 2914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 App. D.C. 425 (O'Donnell v. Beechnut Packing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Donnell v. Beechnut Packing Co., 45 App. D.C. 425, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2707 (D.C. Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

In Fischer v. Munsey Trust Co. 44 App. D. C. 212, we ruled that where the affidavits in support of and in opposition to a motion to quash service of process raise an issue of fact, and the parties do not waive a trial by jury, the motion necessarily must be denied, and that upon proper plea the issue should be determined by a jury. The ruling of the learned trial justice in this case was made before our decision in the Fisher Case, and evidently proceeded upon the theory that such issues should be determined by the court without the interposition of a jury, irrespective of the attitude of the parties.

That a sharp issue of fact was raised by the affidavits filed in this case cannot be doubted. This is not denied by counsel for appellee, but they insist that appellant waived his right to a jury. We are unable to accept this contention. The most that can be said is that appellant was willing to try the issue of fact before the court, providing he could have such a hearing as would be had before a' jury; in other words, as specifically stated in his motion, providing he could introduce oral testimony and cross-examine witnesses. This right he insisted upon throughout, and it was denied him. It cannot reasonably be said, therefore, that he waived his rights.

Wo are of opinion, however, that a ruling on the question involved by appellant’s motion for service in New York is premature. That question can be determined more intelligently after the issue of fact raised by the affidavits is settled.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

In Fischer v. Munsey Trust Co. 44 App. D. C. 212, we ruled that where the affidavits in support of and in opposition to a motion to quash service of process raise an issue of fact, and the parties do not waive a trial by jury, the motion necessarily must be denied, and that upon proper plea the issue should be determined by a jury. The ruling of the learned trial justice in this case was made before our decision in the Fisher Case, and evidently proceeded upon the theory that such issues should be determined by the court without the interposition of a jury, irrespective of the attitude of the parties.

That a sharp issue of fact was raised by the affidavits filed in this case cannot be doubted. This is not denied by counsel for appellee, but they insist that appellant waived his right to a jury. We are unable to accept this contention. The most that can be said is that appellant was willing to try the issue of fact before the court, providing he could have such a hearing as would be had before a' jury; in other words, as specifically stated in his motion, providing he could introduce oral testimony and cross-examine witnesses. This right he insisted upon throughout, and it was denied him. It cannot reasonably be said, therefore, that he waived his rights.

Wo are of opinion, however, that a ruling on the question involved by appellant’s motion for service in New York is premature. That question can be determined more intelligently after the issue of fact raised by the affidavits is settled.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 App. D.C. 425, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonnell-v-beechnut-packing-co-cadc-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack