Ennis v. Casey

• Decision Date: 01 December 1951
• Docket Number: Nos. 7657,7658,s. 7657
• Citation: Ennis v. Casey, 238 P.2d 435, 72 Idaho 181, 28 A.L.R.2d 952 (Idaho 1951)
• Parties: , 28 A.L.R. 952 ENNIS v. CASEY et al.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 435

238 P.2d 435

72 Idaho 181, 28 A.L.R. 952

ENNIS v.CASEY et al.

Nos. 7657, 7658.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 1, 1951.

W. J. Nixon, Bonners Ferry, and Stephen Bistline, Sandpoint, for appellants.

Wm. S. Hawkins and E. L. Miller, Coeur d'Alene, and J. Alfred May, Moses Lake, Wash., for respondent.

KEETON, Justice.

This action for declaratory relief under Sec. 10-1201, I.C. was instituted by Isabella Ennis, plaintiff and respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, against W. L. Casey doing business as Idaho Boyd-Conlee Company, appellant, hereinafter referred to as the company, and Boundary Grain and Feed, Inc., a corporation, appellant, hereinafter referred to as the corporation.

By an amended complaint plaintiff alleged that on and between August 19, 1946, and May 12, 1947, she stored with the company 747,715 lbs. of wheat and there were issued to her negotiable warehouse receipts showing dates and pounds of wheat so stored; that on August 31, 1948, the company notified the plaintiff that the wheat represented by said warehouse receipts had sustained a flood damage which destroyed 106,722 lbs. thereof, and that new negotiable warehouse receipts would be issued by the corporation for the total wheat stored, less the wheat damaged by the flood.

Plaintiff further alleged she was entitled to have issued to her new negotiable warehouse receipts for the amount and kind of wheat represented without reduction on account of flood damage; that if a part of plaintiff's wheat was destroyed by a flood, the company and the corporation were in a position to know by the exercise of reasonable care that such flood was imminent and could have removed the wheat to a place of safety, and the failure so to do constituted negligence.

Subsequent to the damage to the stored wheat in the company's warehouse, the business and warehouse were purchased by the corporation.

Judgment was entered against the corporation by default.

The company filed an answer, its demurrer to the amended complaint having been overruled and on issues joined, the case was tried before the court without a jury.

On testimony submitted the court found that the wheat described in plaintiff's complaint, totaling 747,715 lbs., had been stored in a warehouse of the company, that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of negotiable warehouse receipts, and '* * * That a portion of said wheat was damaged by flood and that such flood damage was sustained by virtue of and as a result of the failure of the defendantW. L. Casey and W. L. Casey doing business as Idaho Boyd-Conlee Company and/or his or its employees or agents to exercise such care in regard to that wheat as a reasonable careful owner under similar conditions would exercise and that said damage could have been avoided by the exercise of such care by the defendantsW. L. Casey and Idaho Boyd-Conlee Company.'

The court further found that the company knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care, was in a position to know that a flood was imminent, and that the company did not take any steps to protect plaintiff's grain against the impending flood, and if the company had acted as a reasonable prudent person, the wheat could and should have been removed and the damage to the grain prevented; that the flood damage could have been avoided if the company had exercised a degree of care incumbent upon a reasonable prudent person.

In the decree following the findings, the court decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to have issued to her new negotiable uniform warehouse receipts in the amount and for the kind of wheat set forth in the original warehouse receipts without any reduction on account of flood damage, and decreed the company to have been guilty of negligence.

The company and the corporation filed separate appeals and for the purpose of decision, both appeals will be discussed and decided in one opinion.

By assignments of error the company attacks the bringing and entertaining of this action under the declaratory judgment statute contending that a recovery, if any, must be based on negligence.Hence the suit is not one for a declaratory judgment.

The declaratory judgment act, Sec. 10-1201, I.C. provides: 'Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for.The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.'

A statute worded the same as the above has been enacted by many of the states, also the United States Congress.No authority from any decision of the states, or the United States, has been called to our attention where the statute had been interpreted to include an adjudication of rights and liability which necessitated the determination of whether or not a tort or wrong had been committed, or to determine a liability due to breach of contract.Whatever rights the plaintiff may have had under the original warehouse receipts...