Case Name: SHELDON v. FIDELITY TRUST & GUARANTY CO. OF BUFFALO
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06-11
Citations: 71 N.Y.S. 65
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHELDON v. FIDELITY TRUST & GUARANTY CO. OF BUFFALO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 71
Pages: 65–66

Head Matter:
SHELDON v. FIDELITY TRUST & GUARANTY CO. OF BUFFALO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
June 11, 1901.)
Jury in Equity—Discretion of Court—Review.
The discretion vested in the trial court by Code Civ. Proe. § 971, to direct, upon the application of either party, that one or more questions of fact arising on the issues may be tried by a jury, in a case where a party is not entitled to a jury as a matter of right, is reviewable.
Spring, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Erie county.
Action by Emma J. Sheldon against the Fidelity Trust & Guaranty Company of Buffalo. From an order denying a motion for the framing of issues of fact for a trial by jury, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued before ADAMS, P. J., and McLENNAN, SPRING, WILLIAMS, and RUMSEY, JJ.
Eugene M. Bartlett, for appellant.
Louis L. Babcock, for respondent.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, J.
The order appealed from should be reversed, and an order submitting the two questions to the jury granted. The relief sought by the motion at special term rested largely in the sound discretion of that court. Such discretion is, however, subject to review by this court. The discretion was not wisely exercised in this instance. It is not necessary to recite in detail the allegations contained in the pleadings. The matter covered by the two questions relates to transactions with a prominent mem ber of the bar, and is likely to be sharply contested. It is not well to put the whole responsibility of deciding these issues upon the justice who is called upon to try the case. He should have the judgment of a jury to aid him, and, while the denial of the relief asked for at the present time would not prevent the trial justice, upon application at the trial or of his own motion, from directing such issues to be submitted to a jury, still it is better that the matter be provided for here, in order that there may be no delay at special term when the case comes on for trial. We dislike to interfere with the discretion exercised by justices at special term, but we cannot well avoid doing so in this instance.
The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant, and an order made for the submission to a jury of the questions, Nos. 2 and 3, submitted by the respondent at special term. All concur, excepting SPBING-, J., who dissents in a memorandum.