Case Name: C. E. MACKEY, Appellant, v. FRANK ENZENSPERGER, Respondent
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1895-02-23
Citations: 11 Utah 154
Docket Number: No. 525
Parties: C. E. MACKEY, Appellant, v. FRANK ENZENSPERGER, Respondent.
Judges: Smith, J., concurs.
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 154–175

Head Matter:
C. E. MACKEY, Appellant, v. FRANK ENZENSPERGER, Respondent.
Constitutional Law. — Jury Trial. — Unanimity of Verdict.— Session Laws 1892, o. 44, amending section 8871, 2 Comp. Laws 1888, permitting a verdict of a jury in civil cases upon the concurrence therein of nine or more members thereof, is-not in conflict with Art. 7 of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, providing 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, 9 Utah, 61, followed. King, J., dissenting.
(No. 525.
Decided Feb. 23, 1895.
39 P. R. 541.)
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. Hon. Charles S. Zane, Judge. ~
Action by C. E. Mackey against Frank Enzensperger. There was a verdict for the defendant, and from a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
[The court has followed the ruling in Hess v. White, in Publishing Go. v. Brewing Co., 10 Utah, 147] Tuclcer y. Salt Lake City, Id. 173] Wolf Co. v. Brewing Co., Id. 179] Riley v. Rapid Transit Co., Id. 428. The case of Publishing Co. v. Brewing Co., is now on appeal to the supreme court of the United States and the decision of that court upon this question is awaited with much interest. — Rep.]
Messrs. Booth, Lee & Cray, for appellant.
Messrs. Powers & Hiles, for respondent.
[See note to Jacksonville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Adams, 24 L. R. A. 272 for a full discussion of the constitutionality of verdict by less than all the jurors. — Rep.]

Opinion:
Bartoh, J.:
The plaintiff brought this action to recover upon a judgment for $1,763.77, obtained against the defendant in the state of Colorado, which judgment the plaintiff claims has never been paid. The defendant, in his answer, has set up full payment and satisfaction. The jury, by a verdict, concurred in by nine of their number, found the issues for the defendant, and the court entered judgment thereon, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, and for costs in favor of the defendant. From this action of the court the plaintiff appealed, and the sole question raised is whether a verdict, being concurred in by less than 12 jurors, as provided by the act of the territorial legislature, approved March 10, 1892, will support a judgment.
This question was decided in the affirmative by this court in the case of Hess v. White, 9 Utah, 61, 33 Pac. 243, and the ruling in that ease has been followed in several other cases; but counsel for the appellant have cited us to several decisions of other appellate courts, made since the decision of Hess v. White, wherein the contrary view was adopted. We have examined the recent cases cited, but the reasoning of those decisions is not such as to warrant a departure from the doctrine enunciated in Hess v. White. The judgment is affirmed.
Smith, J., concurs.