Case Name: AZARIAH WALKER, Appellant, v. THOMAS SEDGWICK, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1855
Citations: 5 Cal. 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: AZARIAH WALKER, Appellant, v. THOMAS SEDGWICK, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
AZARIAH WALKER, Appellant, v. THOMAS SEDGWICK, Respondent.
That statute which requires that upon the trial of an issue of fact by the Court, the decision shall state separately the facts and conclusions of law, does not apply in Chancery cases.
In Chancery cases this Court has to examine the facts, and is not concluded by the findings of the Chancellor.
Parties to a suit in Chancery are not entitled to a trial by jury.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
The point in controversy is distinctly stated in the opinion of the Court.
Terry and Perley, for Appellant.
Otis L. Bridges, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Bryan, J., concurred.
The parties agree by stipulation to submit this case upon the single point, that the Judge below failed to find the facts and conclusions of law.
This is a case in Chancery to enforce a vender's lien for the purchase money. In Chancery cases this Court has to examine the facts, and is not concluded by the findings of the Chancellor. The statute regulation does not therefore apply in such cases, because it would be utterly fruitless and lex non cogit ad vana. The statute was intended for cases in which the trial by the Judge supplied the place of a trial by jury, where the parties consent to it; and we have long ago determined that in Chancery cases the parties were not entitled to trial by jury.
Judgment affirmed.