Case Name: WEBER ELECTRIC COMPANY v. TUMINELLY, INC. DORSO TRAILER SALES, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1973-04-20
Citations: 296 Minn. 488
Docket Number: No. 43564
Parties: WEBER ELECTRIC COMPANY v. TUMINELLY, INC. DORSO TRAILER SALES, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.
Judges: Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Otis, Kelly, and Schultz, JJ.
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 296
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
WEBER ELECTRIC COMPANY v. TUMINELLY, INC. DORSO TRAILER SALES, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.
206 N. W. 2d 656.
April 20, 1973
No. 43564.
Wiese & Cox and Paul G. Neimann, for appellant.
James G. Paulos, for respondent.
Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Otis, Kelly, and Schultz, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal by a third-party defendant, Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc., from an order denying it a new trial. The only issue is whether it was error not to grant appellant a jury trial. We hold that it was and reverse.
It is undisputed that both a jury trial and a court trial were designated in various notes of issue. Although the respondent third-party plaintiff supports appellant's contention that appellant had specifically asked the court for a jury trial, the court had no recollection of the motion and the record was silent on the subject.
Rule 38.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled the parties to a jury trial unless the right was waived under Rule 38.02. The latter provision specifies the manner of waiver as follows:
"In actions arising on contract, and by permission of the court in other actions, any party thereto may waive a jury trial in the manner following:
(1) By failing to appear at the trial;
(2) By written consent, by the party or his attorney, filed with the clerk;
(3) By oral consent in open court, entered in the minutes."
Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appellant has not consented to waive a jury and should have been granted a new trial.
Reversed.