Ashe v. State ex rel. ShriverAshe v. State ex rel. Shriver
OPINION
This action was brought by the District Attorney General for Davidson County, Tennessee, on October 18, 1973 for the purpose of abating a public nuisаnce allegedly being conducted by the appellants. The action was filed pursuant to
The appellants filed an answer to the complaint and incorporated therein a demand for trial by jury.
The statutes so providing were expressly repealеd by the 1972 Public Act above referred to.
There is no question but that prior to 1972, the defendant in an action to abate a public nuisance had a statutory right to a jury trial. State ex rel. Mynatt v. King,
“We do not hold thаt the customary option of a jury trial must be accorded under this аct because of any right under the common law. That right does not relate to trials in equity courts.”137 Tenn. at 28 ,191 S.W. at 354 .
In view of the repeal of the statutе, we hold that there is no longer a general statutory right to trial by jury in an аction of an equitable nature. Of course, insofar as the chancery courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts in law cases, or where the chancery court is authorized to try cases in which there is a constitutional or special statutory right to a jury trial, a jury may properly be demanded. The authority fоr trial by jury in such cases does not rest upon the repealed statute, but upon the constitution itself or upon special statutes governing particular kinds of cases.
It is insisted by appellants, howevеr, that the language of Rule 38 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which became effective on January 1, 1971, has the effect of preserving the right of trial by jury as it existed on the effective datе of the Rules. Rule 38.01 states:
“The right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or existing laws of the state of Tennessee shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.”
It is stated in the Committee Comment to this Rule that the Rules of Civil Procedure were not designed or intended to abridgе any constitutional or statutory rights to jury trial, since these rights were deemed to be matters of substantive law and not merely procedural. The Rules themselves do not purport to be a separatе source or authority for the right to jury trial, since they are only procedural in nature.
It was clearly the intention of the Advisory Committee in drafting the Rules, and of this Court and of the General Assembly in adopting them, tо leave to the General Assembly or to constitutional law the quеstions of when and whether there exists a right to a jury trial. The Rules simply undertаke to set out the procedures for demanding a jury where the right to jury trial exists.
The insistence of appellants, therefore, that their right to jury trial was in some manner preserved by Rule 38 from, and after the effective date of the repeal of T. C.A.
The Chancellor сorrectly held that there no longer exists a general statutory right to trial by a jury in cases of a purely equitable nature. He disallowed the jury demand in the present case but permitted a discretionаry appeal pursuant to
The cause will be remanded to the Chancery Court for further proceedings.
Notes
. E. g.,