Case Name: Edward H. Deavitt v. Frank M. Corry
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1916-10-30
Citations: 90 Vt. 531
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward H. Deavitt v. Frank M. Corry.
Judges: Present: Munson, C. J., Watson, Haselton, Powers and Taylor, JJ.
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Edward H. Deavitt v. Frank M. Corry.
May Term, 1916.
Present: Munson, C. J., Watson, Haselton, Powers and Taylor, JJ.
Opinion filed October 30, 1916.
Account — Practice Act• — Jury Trial.
The action of account was not abolished by the practice act, No. 90, Acts of 1915.
A party is not entitled to a trial by jury in an action of account.
Action op Account. Judgment to account and auditor appointed. The defendant moved to dismiss because the action of account was abolished by No. 90, Acts of 1915, because by the provisions of that act the action should be one of contract and the defendant was entitled thereunder to a trial by jury; and because all actions which do not give the defendant a trial by jury were abolished by the act. The defendant also moved to revoke the reference to the auditor, and recall the rule, for the reason that the ease is not one in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial, and that the reference was not agreed to by the parties. Heard on the above motions at the September Term, 1915, Washington County, Waterman, J., presiding. The motions were overruled, and the defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.
U. C. Shurtleff for the defendant.
W. B. C. Sticlmey, W. A. Lord, John W. Redmond and P. L. Laird for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Watson, J.
It is urged that the action of account as such is inconsistent with the forms of civil actions specified in section 1 .of the Practice Act of 1915, and consequently it was abolished by section 17, by which all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with that Act were repealed. But this argument loses sight of the provision of section 11, whereby nothing contained in the Act "shall be taken to impair any right or remedy now provided by law." Certainly before the passage of that Act, the action of account was a means provided by law to enforce a right. It was therefore a remedy, and it remains unimpaired.
The foregoing ruling leaves without force the defendant's contention that he is entitled to a trial by jury. Hall v. Armstrong, 65 Vt. 421, 26 Atl. 592, 20 L. R. A. 366.
Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.