Court Opinion

ID: 9794517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:07:20.944948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:11.601300
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McINTYRE
(concurring)^
I concur in the result, but I think we unnecessarily cause confusion in what is said about Rule 38(b), W.R.C.P.
This rule does not expressly cover a situation where, in a special proceeding, an issue is not joined by pleadings directed to such issue. Section 1-771, W.S.1957, does expressly cover and apply.
When we read something into a rule of procedure, by implication, and then say the implied language supersedes an applicable statutory provision, we create a situation where an interested party could be trapped to his prejudice.
*713Since we have rule-making powers adequate to correct any conflict in procedural matters, I think we should amend Rule 38(b) by amendment rather than by judicial interpretation.
In the case at bar, it would be sufficient merely to hold, regardless of whether Rule 38(b) does or does not supersede § 1-771, that the owners waived any objections they might have to a trial by jury for determination of the amount of compensation. We ought not indulge in dictum to make law which could best be made by correcting rules of procedure.