Bayon v. Rivet
Supreme Court of Louisiana
TH E defendant, in the Court below, had prayed for a jury, judgment was had against him, and he appealed: the plaintiff filed the common answer to the petition for the appeal, "that there is no er ror," &c. and now the defendant insisted on the cause being tried by a jury. No jury was prayed for in this Court. The cause is to be tried de novo: a jury, therefore, ought to be asked, or the trial will be by the Court.
Read the full summary
TH E defendant, in the Court below, had prayed for a jury, judgment was had against him, and he appealed: the plaintiff filed the common answer to the petition for the appeal, "that there is no er ror," &c. and now the defendant insisted on the cause being tried by a jury. No jury was prayed for in this Court. The cause is to be tried de novo: a jury, therefore, ought to be asked, or the trial will be by the Court. The act of 1807, ch. l, s. 20, directs that, on the appellee answering the petition for the appeal, by a declaration in writing that there is not any error in theproceed-ings…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gourt.
We would always lean in ta vor of an application, for a trial of a matter of fact by a jury. In this case, the applicant has been guilty of no latches.
Motion allowed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Seville v. ChretienSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1817