Court Opinion

ID: 9532958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:26:37.768091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:52.728639
License: Public Domain

Dieterich, J.
(dissenting in part). I can find no authority for making the order appealed from and the reasons of the majority do not convince me of such power in the trial court. The order appealed from is without precedent. It grants a nonsuit and makes it a condition that suit may *416again be started only on the payment of $923.10, which includes reimbursement for the expense of the attendance of the jury panel. Such excessive fees amount to a penalty. In any event, if the suit is not again started the trial court’s order provides for statutory costs and disbursements and no attorney’s fees.
In any event, the costs of the attendance of the jury panel should not have been allowed by this court. In the record before us, a very serious question is raised that the panel of jurors was not properly selected. It is true the merits of the appellant’s arguments cannot be determined on this appeal, but the majority has seen fit to recognize the problem and to advise the jury commissioners how to avoid the question in the future. If the jury was not properly impaneled, there is no justice in requiring the plaintiff to pay the costs of impaneling it.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Hallows joins in this dissent.