Case Name: In Re McCORMICK'S ESTATE. BRANCH v. McCORMICK'S ESTATE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-10-20
Citations: 72 Or. 608
Docket Number: 
Parties: In Re McCORMICK’S ESTATE. BRANCH v. McCORMICK’S ESTATE.
Judges: Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNart concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 608–624

Head Matter:
Argued July 13,
reversed September 15, 1914.
On rehearing former decision affirmed October 20, 1914.
In Re McCORMICK’S ESTATE. BRANCH v. McCORMICK’S ESTATE.
(143 Pac. 915; 144 Pac. 425.)
Statutes — Special and Local Laws — Court Practice.
1. A statute attempting to transfer all probate business and jurisdiction of the County Court in Multnomah County to the Circuit Court, leaving Section 1241, L. O. L., relating to the proceedings in a County Court on a claim against a decedent’s estate to apply to the Circuit Court, violates Article IY, Section 23, subdivision 3, of the Constitution, forbidding any local or special laws regulating the practice in courts of justice.
[As to what are local or private laws, see notes in 23 Am. Dec. 543; 1 Am. St. Pep. 903.] '
Jury — Right to Trial by Jury — Statutory Provision.
2. Though Section 1241, L. O. L., provides for hearing and determining in a summary manner all demands against an estate, a person presenting a claim for $4,682.77 against an estate is entitled to trial by jury.
[As to conditions and restrictions that may be imposed by legislation upon trial by jury, see note in 98 Am. St. Rep. 538.]
Jury — Right to Trial by Jury — Waiver.
3. One presenting a claim against a decedent’s estate can waive the right to trial by jury only as provided by statute.
Executors and Administrators — Claims Against Estate — Form of Remedy.
4. Section 1241, L. O. L., authorizing a trial in the County Court in a summary manner of a claim against a decedent’s estate, is not exclusive, but, under Section 386, authorizing the commencement of an action against an executor or administrator at any time after six months from the granting of letters testamentary or of administra tion till final settlement, the matter may be sued in the Circuit Court directly.
ON REHEARING.
Statutes — Special Laws — Court Practice — “Trial Jury.”
5. In view of Section 935, L. O. L., giving the County Court concurrent jurisdiction where the subject of controversy does not exceed the value of $500, and exclusive jurisdiction of actions of forcible entry and detainer, Section 936, giving the County Court exclusive jurisdiction in probate proceedings, Section 987, defining a trial jury as a body of men, 12 in number in the Circuit Court, and 6 in the County Court and courts of the justices of the peace, and Section 1135, prescribing the procedure in County Courts in probate proceedings by citation, etc., Laws of 1913, page 769, providing an additional circuit judge for the fourth judicial District Court, abolishing the office of the county judge in Multnomah County, transferring its business to the Circuit Court, and installing the then county judge in the office of Circuit Court judge till his successor is elected and qualified, and repealing all acts and parts of aets in conflict therewith, is in violation of Article IY, Section 23, of the Constitution, prohibiting special laws regulating practice in courts of justice.
Statutes — Special Laws — “Practice.”
fi. Within Article IY, Section 23, of the Constitution, prohibiting special laws regulating the practice in courts of justice, “practice” means those legal rules which direct the eourse of procedure to bring parties into court, and the eourse of the court after they are brought in, and includes the formula by which the court’s jurisdiction is first asserted and afterward exercised in respect to any litigation in all its phases, till finally completed.
Courts — “ Jurisdiction.”
7. “Jurisdiction” as applied to courts is power to hear and determine issues of laws and fact, which means authority to perform any judicial function.
Statutes — Special Laws — Creation of Courts.
8. Article YU,. Section 1, of the Constitution, declaring that the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be created by law, does not authorize the legislature to establish new courts in violation of Article IY, Section 23; forbidding special laws regulating practice in courts of justice.
Constitutional Laws — Repeal of Constitutional Provisions — Implied Repeal.
9. Repeals of constitutional provisions by implication are not favored.
From Multnomah.: Thomas J. Cleeton, Judge.
Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Eakin.
H. W. McCormick in his lifetime sold the timber on two sections of land in Washington to one Cain for $25,000, and took a note for that amount to he paid each month as the timber was removed during a period of seven years. McCormick afterward assigned his-contract with Cain and the said note for $25,000 to' Carmody, and in connection with the assignment guaranteed to Carmody, or his assigns, that there was a. certain quantity of timber on the land, and that Carmody would realize $21,500 therefrom. Carmody thereafter assigned the note and contract with the said guaranty to Branch, the plaintiff here. After removing timber and paying for the same to the amount of $8,040, Cain became insolvent and abandoned the contract. Branch thereafter sold the remaining timber to Zufelt and received $8,539.63 therefor, which was. less than the guaranty, and this suit is brought to recover the balance of the $21,500. The trial of the case-resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the-amount of $4,682.77. Both parties appeal. Many issues are raised as to the diligence of Branch and Carmody in collecting the money and as to the quantity of timber on the land, but there is one error that makes-it necessary to send the case back, and renders it unnecessary to consider the other assignments.
Reversed.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Lewis & Lewis and Messrs. Dysert & Ellsbury, with an oral argument by Mr. Andrew T. Lewis.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Veazie, McCourt & Veazie, with an oral argument by Mr. J. C. Veazie.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court-
Defendant first questions the authority of the-Circuit Court to -try the claim of Branch against the- McCormick estate; also the validity of the act of the legislature which attempts to transfer all probate business and jurisdiction of the County Court in Multnomah County to the Circuit Court. This is in violation of Article IV, Section 23, subdivision 3, of the Constitution, in that it is local and special in attempting to regulate the practice pf -the courts of justice in Multnomah County, without any change in the practice in the County Court as it relates to probate work, leaving Section 1241, L. O. L., to control in the trial of claims against the estate disallowed by the administrator. Said section was attempted to be followed in this proceeding in the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court cannot try a case summarily. The effect of the act is to attempt to transfer the practice in the County Court in Multnomah County to the Circuit Court without any attempt to change or modify the procedure in regard to probate matters to fit the Circuit Court practice, without which the former has to be followed in probate matters which we see cannot be done.
Furthermore, the plaintiff has a right to trial by jury, which he did not waive by remaining silent. He could waive it only in the manner provided by the Code. The term "summary proceeding," as used in Section 1241, L. O. L., means without special formality or without a formal pleading, and does not necessarily mean a trial without a jury. In Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 341, 348 (23 Pac. 473, 28 Pac. 135), as in Pruitt v. Muldrick, 39 Or. 353 (65 Pac. 20), the case is in the nature of an action at law, and must be tried anew when taken before the county judge. The legislature did not intend by Section 1241 to preclude a jury trial. This is also followed in Johnston v. Shofner, 23 Or. 111 (31 Pac. 254).
However, the method of trial provided in Section 1241 is not exclusive, but, under Section 386, L. O. L., by a statement of the proper facts, the matter may be sued in the Circuit Court directly: See Pruitt v. Muldrick, 39 Or. 356 (65 Pac. 20). This case was not commenced in the Circuit Court under Section 386, but was brought before the. Circuit Court under Section 1241. It was not in the power of the legislature to transfer the practice in Multnomah County in probate matters to the Circuit Court and make that the practice of the Circuit Court, which was the intended effect of the act. Although this court has held that the probate practice is in the nature of an equity proceeding, yet the trial of a claim against an administrator is a trial at law, and the parties have a right to a jury trial: See In re Chambers' Estate, 38 Or. 131 (62 Pac. 1013), in which Judge Wolverton says that the claim may be contested in the County Court before a jury if desired.
The decree is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNart concur.
Decided October 20, 1914.