Springville v. Thomas

Supreme Court

Springville v. Thomas

166 U.S. 707, 17 S. Ct. 717, 41 L. Ed. 1172, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2062

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 26, 1897

DocketNos. 103, 153, 199

StatusPublished

Cited by36 cases

This text of 166 U.S. 707 (Springville v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Springville v. Thomas, 166 U.S. 707, 17 S. Ct. 717, 41 L. Ed. 1172, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2062 (1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

In these three cases judgments were entered on verdicts returned by less than the whole number of jurors, by which they *708 were tried. It has been decided by this court that the territorial act of March 10, 1892, permitting this to be done, Laws Utah, 1892, p. 46, was invalid, because in contravention of the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution and the act of Congress of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27, c. 80. American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, ante, 464.

Exceptions to the course pursued were sufficiently preserved and the judgments must be reversed if this court has jurisdiction.

The amounts in controversy in each instance were not sufficient to give jurisdiction, and the inquiry is whether the validity of any statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question before the courts below. Act March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443, c. 355, § 2.

The Supreme Court of the Territory held in Hess v. White, 9 Utah, 61 (and the decision was followed in these cases), that the act of Congress of September 9, 1850, 9 Stat. 453, c. 51, § 6, the organic act of the Territory, vested in the territorial legislature such unlimited legislative power as enabled it to provide that unanimity of action on the part of jurors in civil cases was not necessary to a valid verdict. But defendants contended that the act of Congress as thus interpreted was in violation of the Seventh Amendment and the validity of the act was in that way drawn in question. In the view which the Supreme Court took of the act it was obliged to subject it to the test of the Constitution, and accordingly in deciding that the Seventh Amendment did not require unanimity of action, the court held in effect that the act of Congress was constitutional although it empowered the territorial legislature to provide for verdicts by less than the whole number of jurors. The question involved was not matter of construction of the territorial act, but the court discussed its validity, and this depended on the validity of the act of Congress giving it the scope which the court attributed to it.

In this there was error. In our opinion the Seventh Amendment secured unanimity in finding a verdict as an essential feature of trial by jury in common law cases, and the act .of *709 Congress could not impart the power to change the constitutional rule, and could not be treated as attempting to do so.

These cases are exceptional, and, under the peculiar circumstances, we think jurisdiction may be maintained.

Judgments reversed, and eases remanded to the Supreme Court of the State for further proceedings.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

In these three cases judgments were entered on verdicts returned by less than the whole number of jurors, by which they *708 were tried. It has been decided by this court that the territorial act of March 10, 1892, permitting this to be done, Laws Utah, 1892, p. 46, was invalid, because in contravention of the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution and the act of Congress of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27, c. 80. American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, ante, 464.

Exceptions to the course pursued were sufficiently preserved and the judgments must be reversed if this court has jurisdiction.

The amounts in controversy in each instance were not sufficient to give jurisdiction, and the inquiry is whether the validity of any statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question before the courts below. Act March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443, c. 355, § 2.

The Supreme Court of the Territory held in Hess v. White, 9 Utah, 61 (and the decision was followed in these cases), that the act of Congress of September 9, 1850, 9 Stat. 453, c. 51, § 6, the organic act of the Territory, vested in the territorial legislature such unlimited legislative power as enabled it to provide that unanimity of action on the part of jurors in civil cases was not necessary to a valid verdict. But defendants contended that the act of Congress as thus interpreted was in violation of the Seventh Amendment and the validity of the act was in that way drawn in question. In the view which the Supreme Court took of the act it was obliged to subject it to the test of the Constitution, and accordingly in deciding that the Seventh Amendment did not require unanimity of action, the court held in effect that the act of Congress was constitutional although it empowered the territorial legislature to provide for verdicts by less than the whole number of jurors. The question involved was not matter of construction of the territorial act, but the court discussed its validity, and this depended on the validity of the act of Congress giving it the scope which the court attributed to it.

In this there was error. In our opinion the Seventh Amendment secured unanimity in finding a verdict as an essential feature of trial by jury in common law cases, and the act .of *709 Congress could not impart the power to change the constitutional rule, and could not be treated as attempting to do so.

These cases are exceptional, and, under the peculiar circumstances, we think jurisdiction may be maintained.

Judgments reversed, and eases remanded to the Supreme Court of the State for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 U.S. 707, 17 S. Ct. 717, 41 L. Ed. 1172, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springville-v-thomas-scotus-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack