AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

JOHN SUE et al., Doing Business as SUE OIL COMPANY, Respondents, v. DONALD W. HOMER et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The only objection raised by the defendants-appellants to the order of reference in this case is that it deprives the defendants of the right to jury trial. The defendants state in their brief that "in the absence of such right, our argument becomes valueless, since our quarrel is not as to Court or Referee, but Court with or Court without Jury." The right to jury trial was waived by the defendants by the joinder in their answer of equitable counterclaims with their counterclaim at law for damages for fraud ( Di Menna v. Cooper Evans Co., 220 N.Y. 391; Liberty Bank of Buffalo v. Lansing, 259 App. Div. 797). There therefore being no right to jury trial, we do not reach the question of whether a compulsory reference may be directed under section 466 of the Civil Practice Act, since, as the defendants indicate in their brief, it is immaterial to them whether the trial is held before a Judge or a Referee, so long as the court holds that they have no right to a jury trial. It may be suggested that the order has become moot, because of the death of the Official Referee and also because of the 60-day clause contained in the order, but the order should nevertheless be affirmed as establishing that the defendants-appellants have no right to a jury trial.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SUE v. HOMER
(Jan 10, 1962)