State Ex Rel. Duncan v. Dean

Oregon Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Duncan v. Dean

262 P. 936, 123 Or. 537, 1928 Ore. LEXIS 8

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 23, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 P. 936 (State Ex Rel. Duncan v. Dean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Duncan v. Dean, 262 P. 936, 123 Or. 537, 1928 Ore. LEXIS 8 (Or. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BELT, J.

The State Board of Medical Examiners revoked the license of defendant to practice in Oregon as a physician and surgeon, by reason of alleged unprofessional conduct. Defendant thereupon appealed to the Circuit Court and the cause was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered “in compliance and in conformity with said verdict” and the order of the State Board of Medical Examiners was reversed. Hence this appeal.

It is urged for the first time on appeal that the Circuit Court erroneously submitted to a jury for its determination the question as to whether the defendant was guilty of unprofessional conduct. It is now too late to complain. The jury was impaneled and sworn to try this matter with the consent of the parties. Having in effect stipulated that the matter should be decided by the jury, the board now complains of an adverse finding. As stated in 35 C. J. 224:

“In a case not of right triable by jury a party cannot complain that the case was so tried if he did not object to that mode of trial, or if he failed to object *539 until after a jury was sworn and impaneled to try the case; and even where the party has an absolute right to have certain issues tried by the court, the right may be waived and is waived by proceeding to trial before the jury without any protest or objection.” Citing Danziger v. Metropolitan Electric R. R. Co., 81 Hun, 5 (30 N. Y. Supp. 580); Wright v. Wright, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 459 (110 S. W. 158); Houston Real Estate Inv. Co. v. Hechler, 47 Utah, 215 (152 Pac. 726), which support the text.

It is unnecessary to decide whether the defendant, under Section 8555, Or. L., was entitled as a matter of right to a jury trial. It is certain that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. Assuming, without deciding, that it was error to submit this cause to a jury, such action would not have the effect of depriving the court of jurisdiction.

The judgment of the Circuit Court in reinstating the license of the defendant is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BELT, J.

The State Board of Medical Examiners revoked the license of defendant to practice in Oregon as a physician and surgeon, by reason of alleged unprofessional conduct. Defendant thereupon appealed to the Circuit Court and the cause was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered “in compliance and in conformity with said verdict” and the order of the State Board of Medical Examiners was reversed. Hence this appeal.

It is urged for the first time on appeal that the Circuit Court erroneously submitted to a jury for its determination the question as to whether the defendant was guilty of unprofessional conduct. It is now too late to complain. The jury was impaneled and sworn to try this matter with the consent of the parties. Having in effect stipulated that the matter should be decided by the jury, the board now complains of an adverse finding. As stated in 35 C. J. 224:

“In a case not of right triable by jury a party cannot complain that the case was so tried if he did not object to that mode of trial, or if he failed to object *539 until after a jury was sworn and impaneled to try the case; and even where the party has an absolute right to have certain issues tried by the court, the right may be waived and is waived by proceeding to trial before the jury without any protest or objection.” Citing Danziger v. Metropolitan Electric R. R. Co., 81 Hun, 5 (30 N. Y. Supp. 580); Wright v. Wright, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 459 (110 S. W. 158); Houston Real Estate Inv. Co. v. Hechler, 47 Utah, 215 (152 Pac. 726), which support the text.

It is unnecessary to decide whether the defendant, under Section 8555, Or. L., was entitled as a matter of right to a jury trial. It is certain that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. Assuming, without deciding, that it was error to submit this cause to a jury, such action would not have the effect of depriving the court of jurisdiction.

The judgment of the Circuit Court in reinstating the license of the defendant is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 936, 123 Or. 537, 1928 Ore. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-duncan-v-dean-or-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack