Hudson v. Mandabach
| Decision Date | 18 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 47544 |
| Citation | 160 N.E.2d 715,22 Ill.App.2d 296 |
| Parties | George Ray HUDSON, Appellee, v. Paul J. MANDABACH, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Yowell & Yowell, Chicago, for appellant.
Howard D. Moses, Chicago, for appellee.
The complaint in this case was for a declaratory judgment to construe a dissolution contract between former partners in an advertising agency. Judgment was for the plaintiff.
In his answer the defendant raised an affirmative defense which charged that the plaintiff had a suit pending in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover on the same agreement. The plaintiff did not reply to this allegation. His failure to do so was an admission of its truth. Sections 32 and 40(2), ch. 110, Ill.Rev.Stat.1957; Laegeler v. Bartlett, 10 Ill.2d 478, 140 N.E.2d 702.
The primary question before us is whether a complaint for declaratory judgment can be brought in a second court when the same point is involved in a case in another court between the same parties.
The dispute concerned commissions received by the defendant from various publications for advertising orders, or contracts for the reservation of space, placed by the partnership prior to dissolution. The Municipal Court pleadings were not attached to the answer, but the briefs indicate that some eighty items of account were in dispute and that the Municipal Court would be faced with the same problem of contract interpretation as was the Superior Court.
Thus it appears that the declaration sought might well eliminate the principal argument between the parties and could result in terminating the prior suit or in lessening the length of the trial. Salutary as this may seem, we think it should not be permitted. The Municipal Court had taken cognizance of the litigation, had the power to dispose of it completely and had the right to do so without interference. Whether the declaratory judgment favored the plaintiff or the defendant, it certainly would be used to influence, if not control, the outcome of the Municipal Court case.
To hold that there could be a declaratory judgment action in one court simultaneously with a case pending in a different court, involving the same parties and a similar issue, would open the door to abuses. This could result in multiple ligitation, unavoidable interference and conflict among the courts and attempts to obtain persuasive findings or advisory opinions with the intent to affect the outcome of concurrent cases.
In the case of Fairbanks Morse & Co. v. Freeport, 5 Ill.2d 85, 125 N.E.2d 57, 59, a declaratory judgment was asked in the Circuit Court while a case involving the same issues and parties was pending in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pipitone v. Mandala
...of Education, 13 Ill.App.2d 208, 141 N.E.2d 393, and defendant is right if they can be labeled 'statements of fact', Hudson v. Mandaback, 22 Ill.App.2d 296, 160 N.E.2d 715; Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, Chap. 110, Sec. 32 and 40(2). We eschew a determination as to who is right on this abstruse point. ......
- People ex rel. Builders Supply & Lumber Co. v. Village of Maywood
-
Estate of Bajonski, In re
...was not treated as a section 2-619 matter below, it is properly reviewed by the appellate court as such. See Hudson v. Mandabach (1959), 22 Ill.App.2d 296, 160 N.E.2d 715. Manhart argues that the present motions must be treated under section 2-615 because no supporting affidavits were filed......
-
Wolf v. Solem
...judgment proceedings followed a jury's verdict on issues made under a motion to dismiss the complaint. In Hudson v. Mandabach, 22 Ill.App.2d 296, 160 N.E.2d 715, 716, the primary question was whether a complaint for declaratory judgment can be brought in a second court when the same point w......