Court Opinion

ID: 9629941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:53:50.403623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:27.564048
License: Public Domain

HOWELL, J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which holds that the trial court’s failure to allow defendant a jury trial on his counterclaim was not prejudicial. The counterclaim constituted a cause of action for money had and received. As such, it was an action at law, and defendant was entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right. The error was committed at the time the trial court refused defendant’s demand for a jury trial. In my opinion it is immaterial that defendant did not make out a case when he was forced to try the matter before the court. The defendant’s right to a jury trial should be considered as of the time of the trial, not in the light of subsequent events. See Lang v. Hill, 226 Or 371, 360 P2d 316 (1961).