Case ID: utah_13/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bartch, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ARTHUR PRATT, Respondent, v. E. H. PARSONS, Appellant.
    Constitutional Law — Jury Trial — Unanimity op Verdict.
    The act of the legislature (Sess. Laws 1892, c; 44) which provides that in civil actions a verdict may be rendered by a concurrence therein of nine or more jurors does not conflict with article 7 of amendments to the constitution of the United States, which provides that in suits at common law, where the value in"controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. Hess v. White, 33 Pac. 248, 9 Utah 61, .followed.
    (No. 616.
    Decided Feb. 6, 1896.
    43 P. R. 620.)
    Appeal from the district court of tlie Third judicial district, Territory of Utah. Hon. S. A. Merritt, Judge.
    
    Arthur Pratt against E. H. Parsons. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Ba/wlins d CriteMow, for appellant.
    At common law the lawful jury was composed of 12 jurors and the unanimity of these 12 members in finding a verdict was an essential attribute. 8 Blackstone Commentaries 376; Proff. on Juries, Sec. 77; Cooley’s Cons. Limitations 394.
    Section 1868 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that “no party shall be deprived of the right of trial by jury in cases at common law.” The 7th amendment to the Constitution provides that “in suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20 the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” It is submitted, therefore, th,at the statute of the territory, pursuant to whose provisions the verdict in this case was received, is invalid. In support of this view see also: Carroll v. Byers, 36th Pac. Rep. 499; Bradford v. territory, 84th Pac. Rep. 66.
    
      Williams, Tan Cott & Sutherland, for respondent.
   Bartch, J.:

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a certain amount which he claims is due him under the terms of a contract between him and the defendant. The case was tried before a jury consisting of twelve jurors, nine of whom concurred in rendering a veridct in favor of the plaintiff, for the amount claimed in the complaint.' Judgment was entered there,on, and the defendant appealed. The only question raised is whether a judgment entered on a verdict concurred in by only nine jurors is valid. This question has been decided in the affirmative several times by this court, and we adhere to our former decisions in this class of cases, the first one of which is Hess v. White, 9 Utah 61.

The judgment is affirmed.

Zane, C. J., and Minee, J., concur.