City of Johnson City v. Caplan
| Decision Date | 05 December 1952 |
| Citation | 30 Beeler 496,253 S.W.2d 725,194 Tenn. 496 |
| Parties | , 194 Tenn. 496 CITY OF JOHNSON CITY et al. v. CAPLAN et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Green & Brandt, Winston & Guinn, Johnson City, for appellants.
Thomas E. Mitchell, Johnson City, for appellee.
Caplan was tried in the City Court of Johnson City on a charge of having violated a specified ordinance of that City. He resisted on the ground that the ordinance in question is unconstitutional. He was found guilty, fined $50, and appealed to the Circuit Court of that county.
Thereupon, and while his case was pending in the Circuit Court, he filed in the Chancery Court a petition under the declaratory judgment statute, Code Section 8835 et seq. He alleged as facts the statements hereinabove made. The purpose of his petition is to procure a decree declaring unconstitutional the ordinance involved in his case pending in the Circuit Court. He prayed and procured a preliminary injunction to stay proceedings in the Circuit Court.
Johnson City demurred. One ground thereof is that it appears from the face of the bill that Caplan is seeking by means of a declaratory judgment to have determined in this Chancery Court proceedings the identical question involved in the pending Circuit Court case, and wherein the same litigants are the only ones involved.
The Chancellor overruled the demurrer and proceeded to consider and determine the constitutionality of the ordinance. The case is here upon the appeal of Johnson City.
It is true, as said in behalf of Caplan, that the declaratory judgment statute is construed liberally in favor of the person seeking relief under its provisions. However, as observed in Hodges v. Hamblen County, 152 Tenn. 395, 398, 277 S.W. 901, some limitations must be placed upon the operation of the statute.
In Georgia Industrial Realty Company v. City of Chattanooga, 163 Tenn. 435, 441, 43 S.W.2d 490, 492, it was held that a declaratory judgment proceedings will not be entertained in the Chancery Court 'to the prejudice of the proceeding at law', citing McFarland v. Crenshaw, 160 Tenn. 170, 175, 22 S.W.2d 229, 230, where the Court said that:--'It is obviously contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Law that a party should be delayed in the prosecution of an accrued cause of action until the termination of a proceeding brought for a declaratory judgment.'
A reason for the conclusions stated in the two Tennessee decisions above mentioned is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herald Pub. Co. v. Bill
...General, 298 Mich. 48, 52, 298 N.W. 400, 135 A.L.R. 931; Bryarly v. State, 232 Ind. 47, 50, 111 N.E.2d 277; Johnson City v. Caplan, 194 Tenn. 496, 498, 253 S.W.2d 725. The state's attorney argues that he represents the people of the state of Connecticut in Hartford County only and that a de......
-
West v. Schofield
...id. we have acknowledged that “certain limitations must be placed upon the operation of the statute.” Johnson City v. Caplan, 194 Tenn. 496, 253 S.W.2d 725, 726 (1952). For example, a declaratory judgment action cannot be used by a court to decide a theoretical question,Miller v. Miller, 14......
-
Grimm v. County Com'rs of Washington County
...purpose of declaratory judgment is to determine future action, not as a collateral attack on past conviction); Johnson City v. Caplan, 194 Tenn. 496, 253 S.W.2d 725 (1952) (holding it to be an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant declaratory relief that a city ordinance was unco......
-
Norcisa v. Board of Selectmen of Provincetown
...298 Mich. 48, 49--52, 298 N.W. 400 (1941); Nelson v. Knight, 254 Or. 370, 372--374, 460 P.2d 355 (1969); Johnson City v. Caplan, 194 Tenn. 496, 498--499, 253 S.W.2d 725 (1952). But see Goodwin v. Louisville, 309 Ky. 11, 12--13, 17, 215 S.W.2d 557 (1948); Kraus v. Birns, 39 Misc.2d 562, 241 ......