Ayers v. General Hospital, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1947
• Docket Number: 7343
• Citation: 182 P.2d 958,67 Idaho 430
• Parties: AYERS v. GENERAL HOSPITAL, Inc., et al
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

182 P.2d 958

67 Idaho 430

AYERS v. GENERAL HOSPITAL, Inc., et al

No. 7343

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 7, 1947

Appeal from District Court, Tenth Judicial District; Idaho County Miles S. Johnson, Judge.

Affirmed, except plaintiff permitted to amend.

J. H Felton, of Moscow, for appellants.

The plaintiff, M. L. Ayers, and the General Hospital, Inc., a defendant, appeal from the two judgments. Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or. 256, 130 P.2d 1013, 144 A.L.R 286; Bruckman v. Bruckman Co., 60 Ohio App. 361, 21 N.E.2d 481; Oldham v. Moodie, 94 Cal.App. 88, 270 P. 688; Neubeck v. McDonald, 128 Misc. 768, 220 N.Y.S. 761.

A declaratory complaint when attacked by demurrer must be construed most favorably to the pleader. Miller v. Currie, 208 Wis. 199, 242 N.W. 570; Clifton Hills Realty Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 60 Ohio App. 443, 21 N.E.2d 993; Dept. of Agriculture and Markets of Wisconsin v. Laux, 223 Wis. 287, 270 N.W. 548; Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or. 256, 130 P.2d 1013, 144 A.L.R. 286.

Wilbur L. Campbell, of Grangeville, and Ray E. Durham, of Lewiston, for respondents.

"The Declaratory Judgment Act (chap. 70, 1933 Sess. Laws) contemplates some specific adversary question or contention based on an existing state of facts, out of which the alleged 'rights, status and other legal relations' arise, upon which the court may predicate a judgment 'either affirmative or negative in form and effect.' (Sec. 1 of Declaratory Act.)

"The questioned 'right' or 'status' may invoke either remedial or preventive relief; it may relate to a right that has either been breached or is only yet in dispute or a status undisturbed but threatened or endangered; but, in either or any event, it must involve actual and existing facts." State v. State Board of Education, 56 Idaho 210, at page 217, 52 P.2d 141; Whitney v. Randall, 58 Idaho 49, at page 58, 70 P.2d 384.

Generally speaking, a controversy that will justify a court entertaining a suit under a declaratory judgment must be something more than a mere difference of opinion, or a mere theoretical question. 16 Amer.Juris. Sec. 10, page 284; 1 C.J.S. Actions § 18(5) at page 1024, Note 48; State ex rel. La Follette v. Dammann, 220 Wis. 17, 264 N.W. 627, 103 A.L.R. 1089; Post v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 227 A.D. 156, 237 N.Y.S. 64; Jefferson County ex rel. Coleman v. Chilton, 236 Ky. 614, 33 S.W.2d 601.

The terms "actual controversy" and "actual antagonistic assertion and denial of rights" were intended to prevent the consideration of moot questions by the court. 16 Amer.Juris Sec. 10, page 284, Note 1; State ex rel. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 140 Wash. 243, 248 P. 793; In re Pittsburg's Consolidated City Charter, 297 Pa. 502, 147 A. 525.

There must be a justiciable controversy in order to invoke the jurisdiction of a court under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Whitney v. Randall, 58 Idaho 49, 59, 70 P.2d 384; Revis v. Daugherty, 215 Ky. 823, 287 S.W. 28; Anderson v. Wyoming Development Co., 60 Wyo. 417, 154 P.2d 318; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000; Kariher's Petition, 284 Pa. 455, 131 A. 265.

The Declaratory Judgment Act contemplates some specific adversary question or contention based on an existing state of facts, out of which the alleged "rights, status, and other legal relations" arise, upon which the court may predicate a judgment. State v. State Board of Education, 56 Idaho 210, 52 P.2d 141; Diefendorf v. Idaho Egg Producers, 59 Idaho 38, 80 P.2d 28.

Appropriate facts should be alleged from which the court may determine that an actual controversy relating to legal rights and duties of the parties exists. Anderson v. Wyoming Development Co., 60 Wyo. 417, 154 P.2d 318.

Givens, Justice. Budge, C. J., Holden and Miller, JJ., and Sutton, D. J., concur.

OPINION

Givens, Justice.

Appellant, as plaintiff, alleged he was bringing suit for and on behalf of himself and all citizens of Grangeville; and all stockholders of the General Hospital, Inc., one of the named defendants, but without alleging he had made demand upon the corporation to act, or that it had failed, refused or neglected to do so, or that such demand would have been futile, Wunderlich v. Coeur d'Alene Vulcan Mining Co., 40 Idaho 173, at page 177, 232 P. 588, 39 A.L.R. 1052; Morton v. Morton Realty Co., 41 Idaho 729, 241 P. 1014; -- an unexplained hiatus -- sued for a declaratory judgment, alleging that in 1938, "the General Hospital" was organized as a domestic business corporation to construct and operate a hospital in Grangeville; that 1315 shares at a par value of $ 32,875.00 were issued and subscribed for; and additional donations of upward of $ 2,500.00 were received, but were insufficient and on solicitation to the U. S. Government for assistance, it was found a grant could be made only on application by a municipality. Thereupon, agreements were reached between the United States Government and the City of Grangeville, whereby the funds of the General Hospital, placed in a fund in the City Treasury, were matched in whole or in part by Federal funds and the hospital was thereby constructed on land owned by the city; the hospital was furnished in large part by funds of the General Hospital, Inc.; that the operating funds were deposited in the Grangeville branch of the First National Bank of Lewiston; and managed and controlled by directors of the General Hospital, Inc., and a committee of the City of Grangeville from 1940 to 1945, when such funds "without any action on the part of the Corporation (Hospital) were made a part of the City funds" and since operated by the city; and that since December 1945, the management and control of the hospital and funds (then $ 13,909.00) have been in the hands of a committee appointed by the Mayor of the city; that plaintiff believes the management and control of the hospital can be handled better by the General Hospital, Inc., which was organized for that purpose and if so operated, it will repay the stockholders and subscribers; and appellant prays that the conflicting claims, rights and status of the General Hospital, the bank and the city be determined. The Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the General Hospital were attached as exhibits to the complaint.

The hospital filed an answer admitting all the allegations of the complaint, but alleged the funds were taken over by the City of Grangeville "without right."

General demurrers of the city and bank, challenging the complaint as not stating a cause of action, were sustained and upon appellants' refusal to amend or plead further, the action was dismissed.

Chapter 70 of the 1933 Session Laws, p. 113, Sec. 2, states:

"Any person interested under * * * written contract or other writings constituting a contract or any oral contract, * * * may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, * * * contract * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder."

"The Declaratory Judgment Act (Chap. 70, 1933 Sess.Laws) contemplates some specific adversary question or contention based on an existing state of facts, out of which...