Bell Telephone Company of Penna. v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 02 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | 8 |
| Citation | 313 Pa. 374,169 A. 571 |
| Parties | Bell Telephone Company of Penna. v. Lewis et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 27, 1933
Appeal, No. 8, May T., 1934, by defendants, from order of C.P. Dauphin Co., Commonwealth Docket, 1933, No. 39, in case of The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. S. S. Lewis secretary of department of highways, and Gifford Pinchot governor of the Commonwealth. Order of court below reversed and proceeding dismissed.
Petition for declaratory judgment. Before WICKERSHAM and FOX, JJ.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting record.
The order of the court below is reversed and the proceeding dismissed at the cost of appellee.
Wm. A. Schnader, Attorney General, with him John A. Moss, Deputy Attorney General, for appellants.
Arthur H. Hull, of Snyder, Miller, Hull & Hull, with him William H. Lamb, for appellee.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
May a petition for a declaratory judgment be maintained against the governor of the Commonwealth under the Declaratory Judgments Act of June 18, 1923, P.L. 840, 12 P.S. 831? We are of opinion that it may not be. We are also of opinion that the secretary of highways may not be made a party to such a proceeding.
The petitioner for the declaratory judgment, The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, seeks to construct a telephone line across a bridge belonging to the State without taking out a license in the manner required by the Acts of June 1, 1931, P.L. 350, 71 P.S. 194a, and May 21, 1931, P.L. 147, 36 P.S. 2934, which require the approval of the license by the governor and permit its revocation upon six months' notice. The contention of the petitioner is that the statutory provisions requiring approval by the governor and rendering licenses revocable on six months' notice are unconstitutional as to it under article XVI, section 12, of our organic law.
In essence the proceeding is against the Commonwealth. It is the owner of the bridge. That the State may not be sued without its consent is fundamental: Constitution, Penna., article I section 11; Collins v. Com., 262 Pa. 572. A declaratory judgment proceeding is a suit adverse in character. We think it never was contemplated in enacting the legislation authorizing declaratory judgments that there might be an order, judgment or decree against the State without its consent. To hold otherwise would be to subject the Commonwealth to all sorts of meddlesome, ill-founded litigation. Moreover, such a proceeding as this against the governor is a futility, since a judgment rendered against him would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayle v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Highways
... ... Commonwealth, 345 Pa. 144, 27 A.2d 53 (1942); Bell ... Telephone Co. [479 Pa. 408] v. Lewis, 313 Pa ... ...
-
In re Johnson's Estate
... ... 477] ... Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, MUSMANNO, ... BENJAMIN R. JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, ... Bethlehem, Pa. [now First Seneca Bank and Trust Company] as ... trustee. Under the terms of the trust the net ... legal and equitable procedure.' In Bell Telephone Company ... of Pennsylvania v. Lewis, 313 Pa. 374, 169 A ... ...
-
Brooks v. Ewing Cole, Inc.
...Frazier v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bayada Nurses, Inc.) , 616 Pa. 592, 52 A.3d 241, 247 (2012) ; see also Bell Tel. Co. of Pa. v. Lewis , 313 Pa. 374, 169 A. 571, 571 (1934) (stating "[t]hat the state may not be sued without its consent is fundamental."). Sovereign immunity is an absolut......
-
Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell
...relief for reasons similar to those above set forth: City of Erie v. Phillips, 1936, 323 Pa. 557, 187 A. 203, and Bell Telephone Co. v. Lewis, 1934, 313 Pa. 374, 169 A. 571, are rulings in terms of the proposition that a proceeding for a declaratory judgment will not be entertained where an......