Page:First National Bank of DeWitt v. Cruthis.pdf/2

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Ark.]
First Nat'l Bank v. Cruthis
Cite as 360 Ark. 528 (2005)
529


  1. COURTSELECTION OF COURTS NO LONGER NECESSARYJURISDICTION OF LAW & EQUITY NOT ALTERED BY AMENDMENT 80. – There is no longer a need to elect in which court to file a lawsuit, however, Amendment 80 did not alter the jurisdiction of law and equity, it only consolidated junsdiction in the circuit courts, therefore, matters that could be submitted to a jury for decision and matters that must be decided by the court remain unaltered.
  2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWGUARANTEE TO TRIAL BY JURYUNAFFECTED BY AMENDMENT 80. – The right to a jury trial set out in the Arkansas Constitution in Art 2, Sec. 7 was unaffected by Amendment 80, all five Arkansas Constitutions have provided that the right to a jury trial "shall remain inviolate"; the 1868 and 1874 constitutions include the additional language that the right to a jury trial extends to "all cases at law"; the supreme court has clearly stated that Art 2, Sec. 7 does not assure the right to a jury trial in all possible instances, but rather in those cases where the right to a jury trial existed when our constitution was framed"; further, the right to a jury trial "does not apply to new rights created by the legislature since the adoption of the constitution, a constitution is not the beginning of government, and it is adopted with a knowledge that it is, and was made in harmony and consonance with the condition of the things existing at the time of its adoption.
  3. EQUITYRESTITUTION FOUNDED ON DOCTRINE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENTUNJUST ENRICHMENT BASED ON WRONGFUL RETENTION OF MONEY CORRESPONDS WITH COMMON LAW ACTION OF ASSUMPSIT. – Restitution is founded upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which is an equitable doctnne; however, even though the doctrine is equitable, the issue of unjust enrichment has been submitted to the jury in circuit court where the assertion is wrongful retention of money because the cause of action is one corresponding with the common law action of assumpsit for money had and received the action for assumpsit is one for recovery of damages for nonperformance of a simple contract; such a contract may be express or implied, and the action is based on the breach thereof, and is therefore ex contractu; in both the civil and common law, rights and causes of action are divided into two classes – those arising ex contractu (from a contract), and those arising ex delicto (from a delict or tort).