in an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h)”). Generally, there is no constitutional right to jury trial for admiralty claims. See Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 19, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 1649, 10 L.Ed.2d 720 (1963). Congress has, however, created a statutory right to a jury trial for certain admiralty claims. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1873 (1994) (Great Lakes Act); 46 U.S.C.App. § 688 (1988) (Jones Act). In addition, the Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs who assert both a Jones Act claim, which creates a statutory right to a jury trial on the law side of the court, and closely related admiralty claims for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure are entitled to a jury trial on both kinds of claims. Fitzgerald, 374 U.S. at 21, 83 S.Ct. at 1650 (<HOLDING>); see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed recognizing that a conditional sales contract divides itself into two parts one of a fully effected sale and one of a provision for securing payment holding that the defendants burden at this stage is one of production not one of persuasion holding that only one trier of fact should be used for the trial of what is essentially one lawsuit to settle one claim split conceptually into separate parts because of historical developments