Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/94772/duignan-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 11:11:59
Document Index: 641263593

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 23', '§ 22', '§ 241', '§ 22', '§ 23', '§ 22', '§ 23', '§ 22', '§ 23', '§ 648', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23']

Duignan Vs United States - Citation 94772 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Duignan Vs. United States - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/94772
Case Number 274 U.S. 195
Appellant Duignan
.....a jury. p. 274 u. s. 197 . page 274 u. s. 196 4. the constitutional right to a jury trial may be waived by proceeding to trial without demanding a jury, and is not saved by an application to the discretionary power of the court, sitting in equity, to frame issues for a jury. p. 274 u. s. 198 . 5. to support a demand for a jury trial of matter raised by a cross-bill, the demandant must first put them in issue by answering the cross-bill. p. 274 u. s. 199 . 6. objections to the equity jurisdiction to adjudge a forfeiture of a lease under § 23 of title ii of the prohibition act, and to the assertion of this right through a cross-bill filed by the lessor against the lessee in a suit brought against them both by the united states under § 22, are.....
Duignan v. United States - 274 U.S. 195 (1927)
U.S. Supreme Court Duignan v. United States, 274 U.S. 195 (1927)
1. Case held properly reviewable by appeal under Jud.Code § 241, before amendment, and certiorari denied. P. 274 U. S. 197 .
2. In a suit by the United States against a lessor and a lessee to abate a liquor nuisance under § 22 of Title II of the Prohibition Act, issues raised by a cross-bill of the lessor asserting his federal right under § 23 to a forfeiture of the lease as against the lessee are within the jurisdiction of the district court regardless of the citizenship of the parties. P. 274 U. S. 197 .
3. A suit by the United States to abate a liquor nuisance under § 22 of Title II of the Prohibition Act is a suit in equity, and triable without a jury. P. 274 U. S. 197 .
4. The constitutional right to a jury trial may be waived by proceeding to trial without demanding a jury, and is not saved by an application to the discretionary power of the court, sitting in equity, to frame issues for a jury. P. 274 U. S. 198 .
5. To support a demand for a jury trial of matter raised by a cross-bill, the demandant must first put them in issue by answering the cross-bill. P. 274 U. S. 199 .
6. Objections to the equity jurisdiction to adjudge a forfeiture of a lease under § 23 of Title II of the Prohibition Act, and to the assertion of this right through a cross-bill filed by the lessor against the lessee in a suit brought against them both by the United States under § 22, are waived if not seasonably taken. P. 274 U. S. 199 .
authorizes the abatement of a liquor nuisance by a bill in equity filed by the United States. Cf. Murphy v. United States, 272 U. S. 630 . But it is urged, assuming the constitutionality of § 23, that section at most gives a right at law to a possessory action for the recovery of the leased premises, which is not cognizable in a court of equity, and in any case appellant was entitled to have the issues raised by the cross-bill tried by a jury.
The right to a jury trial may be waived where there is an appearance and participation in the trial without demanding a jury. Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275; Perego v. Dodge, 163 U. S. 160 , 163 U. S. 166 . Section 649 of the Revised Statutes provides that issues of fact may be tried by the court without a jury, upon written stipulation of the parties, and that the finding of the court upon the facts shall have the same effect as the verdict of the jury. But this section does not preclude other kinds of waiver. Kearney v. Case, supra. Its purpose and effect, when read together with §§ 648 and 700, is to define the scope of appellate review in actions at law without a jury. Unless there is a written stipulation waiving a jury, there can be no review of the rulings on questions of law in
the course of the trial or of the sufficiency of a special finding to support the judgment. See Law v. United States, 266 U. S. 494 , 266 U. S. 496 . Cf. Fleischmann Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 349 , 270 U. S. 355 -356. Appellant's failure to demand a trial by a common law jury amounted, we think, to a waiver of the constitutional right, if any, now claimed.
But even if his application for a jury trial be regarded as an assertion of his constitutional right, there were no issues to be tried by a jury, as he had failed to answer the cross-bill. The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, 87 U. S. 110 . Hence, there was no error in the court's finding the facts supporting its judgment, without a jury. Whether issues raised by the pleadings in proceedings under § 23 must be tried by jury if seasonably demanded is a question which does not arise on this record.
Appellant on appeal for the first time challenged the equity jurisdiction of the court, urging that the remedy at law was adequate. The cancellation of appellant's lease, which was the relief sought, was a remedy competent for equity to give. The repeated holdings of the lower courts that a suit brought under § 23 is one cognizable in equity * at least suggest that the suit is not so plainly at law that the court should, of its own motion, have dismissed it. Under such circumstances, objection to the equity jurisdiction not seasonably taken is waived. Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505 , 130 U. S. 514 ; Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 134 U. S. 530 , 134 U. S. 534 -536; Perego v. Dodge, supra, 163 U. S. 164 , especially where, as here, appellant did not answer the cross-bill. For the same reason, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether appellee adopted the proper procedure in seeking the forfeiture of the lease by cross-bill.
We do not consider the constitutionality of the forfeiture under § 23. The court below, in enumerating the questions raised and presented, made no mention of the constitutional question. The assignment of errors below did not refer specifically to it as required by the rules of that court, and, so far as the record discloses, it was not presented there. See United States v. Gaffney, 10 F.2d 694, 696. This Court sits as a court of review. It is only in exceptional cases coming here from the federal courts that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed. See Montana Ry. Co. v. Warren, 137 U. S. 348 , 137 U. S. 351 ; Old Jordan Mining Co. v. Societe Anonyme Des Moines, 164 U. S. 261 , 164 U. S. 264 -265; Magruder v. Drury, 235 U. S. 106 , 235 U. S. 113 ; Gila Valley Ry. v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 , 232 U. S. 98 ; Grant Bros. v. United States, 232 U. S. 647 , 232 U. S. 660 ; Ana Maria Sugar Co. v. Quinones, 254 U. S. 245 , 254 U. S. 251 . Cf. West v. Rutlege Timber Co., 244 U. S. 90 , 244 U. S. 99 , 100; United States v. Tennessee & Coosa R. Co., 176 U. S. 242 , 176 U. S. 256 .