Document: 372 U.S. 221 83 S.Ct. 609 9 L.Ed.2d 691 A. J. SIMLER, Petitioner,v.Leslie E. CONNER. No. 59. Argued Jan. 9, 19, 1963. Decided Feb. 18, John B. Ogden, Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioner. Peyton Ford, Washington, D.C., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 This Court granted certiorari, 368 966, 82 440, 7 395, to review the decision of Appeals Tenth Circuit, holding that in a diversity action Federal District Court, state law, here Oklahoma, governs determining whether an is 'legal' or 'equitable' purpose deciding claimant has right jury trial. Applying decided trial, although asked by petitioner, was not appropriate. 295 F.2d 534. 2 In this respondent frankly concedes that, contrary holding, federal law trial courts. Respondent seeks sustain result reached Appeals, however, on twin grounds applying no required case because (1) properly summary judgment under Rule 56 Rules Civil Procedure and (2) present character. 3 We agree with courts be determined as matter alw well other actions. The policy favoring trials historic continuing strength. Parsons v. Bedford Breedlove & Robeson, Pet. 433, 446—449, L.Ed. 732; Scott Neely, 140 106, 11 712, 35 358; Byrd Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 525, 537 539, 78 893, 900—901, 953; Beacon Theatres, Inc. Westover, 359 500, 79 948, 988; Dairy Queen, Wood, 369 469, 894, 8 44. Only through jurytrial according can uniformity its exercise which demanded Seventh Amendment1 achieved. cases, course, substantive dimension claim asserted finds source Erie R. Co. Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 1188; see Cities Service Oil Dunlap, 308 208, 60 201, 84 196; Palmer Hoffman, 318 109, 63 477, 87 645, but characterization state-created legal equitable purposes indicated must made recourse law. 4 However, we do warranted requiring 5 two appeals case, ruled view conflicting facts presented affidavits depositions warranted. accept disturb ruling phase since it ample support record. 6 On question whether, instant equitable, conclude record discloses controversy between petitioner substance involves amount fees client, obligated pay respondent, his lawyer. Petitioner admits obligation 'reasonable' fee contingent retainer contract stipulating reasonableness may set court relies subsequent specifying 50% recovery, certain circumstances, fee. counters latter product fraud overreaching basic character suit determine adjudicate owing lawyer client contract, traditionally action. See Trist Child, 21 Wall. 441, 447, 22 623; Stanton Embrey, 93 548, 23 983. fact form declaratory should obscure essentially nature questions involved are traditional common-law issues have been submitted appropriate instructions requested. Accordingly, below erred denying guaranteed him Amendment reversed. Reversed. 'In Suits at common where value shall exceed twenty dollars, preserved, tried jury, otherwise reexamined any United States, than rules law.' U.S.Const., Amend. VII.

Category: 0