Dakota Bank Trust Co. v. Federal Land Bank, 437 N.W.2d 841, 844 (N.D. 1989). Whether a party is entitled to a jury trial is complicated when the pleadings seek both legal and equitable relief. Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459, 462 (N.D. 1978). "In an equitable action the bringing in of a third party whose claim is legal in nature entitles the third party to a jury trial." Id.
1989)], both our state and the federal constitutional provisions preserve the right to trial by jury in those cases which historically were subject to trial by jury at common law. Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 1978). In Landers, supra, 264 N.W.2d at 462, this court compared the scope of the right to a jury trial under both the federal and state constitutions:
Whenever the issues are so interrelated that a decision in the nonjury portion might affect the decision of the jury portion, the jury portion is to be tried first, since otherwise the party entitled to the jury trial would be deprived of part or all of his right to a jury trial. Erickson v. Brown, 2008 ND 57, ¶ 43, 747 N.W.2d 34 (quoting Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459, 463 (N.D. 1978)) (emphasis added); see also Ask, Inc. v. Wegerle, 286 N.W.2d 290, 295-96 (N.D. 1979).
When both legal and equitable claims are presented, the usual procedure is to first try the legal issues to the jury, reserving the equitable issues to be resolved later by the court. See Schumacher v. Schumacher, 469 N.W.2d 793, 799 (N.D.1991); Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459, 463 (N.D.1978). The district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.
[¶ 42] To the extent Dregseth's other equitable claims against Brown are based on the alleged promise to give him an interest in Capital Harvest as part of his compensation package to work at Capital Harvest, we conclude the district court erred in basing its decision solely on its conclusion that Dregseth had adequate remedies at law and dismissing those claims by summary judgment before disposition of his legal claims. [¶ 43] In Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459, 463 (N.D. 1978), this Court explained the procedure for resolving legal and equitable claims in the same case: It is the general rule that legal issues entitling a party to a jury trial should be tried to the jury prior to the disposition of the equitable issues triable to the court.
Sprenger, supra, 146 N.W.2d at 40 ( quoting 2B Barron Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 891 (1961)). Cf. Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459, 463 (N.D. 1978) [Case remanded for further proceedings either by separate trial first on the jury issues, followed by determination of equitable issues remaining, if any, "or by submission of all issues to the jury if the parties so stipulate."]
See Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 110 S.Ct. 1331, 494 U.S. 545, 108 L.Ed.2d 504 (1990). We made it clear in Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459, 463 (N.D. 1978), that legal issues must generally be tried before equitable issues are decided by the court: "It is the general rule that legal issues entitling a party to a jury trial should be tried to the jury prior to the disposition of the equitable issues triable to the court.
The foreclosure of a mortgage is an equitable proceeding. Midwest Fed. S L Ass'n of Minot v. Kouba, 335 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1983). Although a party who raises legal issues in a counterclaim to an equitable action is entitled to a jury trial on those issues [ Ask, Inc. v. Wegerle, 286 N.W.2d 290 (N.D. 1979); Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 1978)], a party who raises legal defenses denominated as a counterclaim in an equitable action is not entitled to have a jury trial on those defenses. Great Plains Supply Co. v. Erickson, 398 N.W.2d 732 (N.D. 1986).
Consolidating pending actions under Rule 42(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., is discretionary with the trial court [ Bagge v. Dardis, 389 N.W.2d 606 (N.D. 1986)], and the trial court may consolidate on its own motion. Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 1978). These actions clearly involved "a common question of law or fact. . . ."
Other courts, however, have held that a defendant or a plaintiff has a right to a jury trial of issues raised in a compulsory legal counterclaim interposed in an equitable action. In Landers v. Goetz, 264 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 1978), the court construed Rules 13(a) and 38(b), N.D.R. Civ. P., which are identical to Rules 13(a) and 38(b), SCRCP, as to this issue. The plaintiff in Landers brought an equitable action for the determination of title to real estate.