Case Name: State of Louisiana ex rel. etc. v. J. B. Gilmore et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1871-07
Citations: 23 La. Ann. 606
Docket Number: No. 276
Parties: State of Louisiana ex rel. etc. v. J. B. Gilmore et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
No. 276.
State of Louisiana ex rel. etc. v. J. B. Gilmore et al.
In a contest lor tlic right to an office under the intrusion act, No. 156 of 1868, the defendant-has accorded to him the right to a trial by jury, if he asks for the same in the answer to ■ the suit. If ho tile an exception to the action which is afterward adjudged to be an answer, he may. still file an amendod answer asking for a jury. Rut if tile question of' the character of the oxcoption be not determined until the trial of the cause, and it then be held that it is an answer, the defendant is not theroby deprived of the right to a trial, by jury which he has prayed for in the answer.
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of Caddo.
Lewises, J. J. 8. Ashton, District Attorney, Land <& Taylor and JR. J. Looney, for plaintiffs and appellees.
JEgan, Williamson <& Wise, for-defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
Ludeling, C. J.
This is a contest for office under act No. 156 of the-General Assembly of 1868.
The defendants prayed for a trial by jury, which was refused by the judge a quo because he thought the application was made too late, and because the defendants had not asked when first-notified of the suit fora special jury to be summoned.
We think the judge erred in refusing the jury. Whether the exception filed could have been regarded as an answer or not, it was treated as an exception, and the defendant was allowed to file an answer, in which he asked for a jury. If, at the time the exception was filed, it had been held by the court to be an answer, defendants might stilL liave filed an amended answer asking for a jury, and we do not think they lost that right, because it was not decided that the exception was substantially au answer, until much later in the proceedings. State ex rel. v. Head, 21 An. The act, under which the relators are proceeding, accords the defendants the right to a trial by jury, and we do not think they have waived it.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the court a qua be reversed, and that the cause be remanded to be proceeded with according-to law.