Conneau v. Geis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of certain land. Each party claimed title to the premises under Manning and Steffin, who were the owners thereof prior to the execution of the deed to the plaintiff. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayke, C.
The defendant demanded a trial by jury, but failed to deposit the sum of twenty-four dollars, which according to its rules the court required to be deposited with the clerk as jury fees before the commencement of the trial. The ease was thereupon tried without a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The first question is, whether the court could rightfully require the advance of this sum. We think that the advance of the fees was a reasonable regulation of the mode of enjoyment of the right of a jury trial; and that the making of such a regulation cannot be said to be a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beers v. BeersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
- Adams v. CorristonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- Randall v. KehlorSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1872
- People v. HoffmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by25 opinions
- People v. PeeteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- People v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Knee v. Baltimore City Passenger Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1898
- Barzellone v. PresleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- Hayworth v. BromwellIndiana Supreme Court · 1959
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.