Lovell v. Town of Stratford

• Decision Date: 06 July 1939
• Docket Number: File 56602
• Citation: Lovell v. Town of Stratford, 7 Conn.Supp. 255 (Conn. Super. 1939)
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: HAROLD C. LOVELL v. TOWN OF STRATFORD, ET AL.

__ A. __

7 Conn.Supp. 255

HAROLD C. LOVELL v. TOWN OF STRATFORD, ET AL.

File No. 56602

Superior Court of Connecticut.

July 6, 1939

A contractor who from time to time made contracts with a town and its board of education was not entitled to a declaratory judgment resolving a conflict of opinion between town officials and the board of education as to which of the parties had power to enter into contracts for the repair and maintenance of school buildings, where the plaintiff contractor had no contract at the time of the action with either the defendant town or the defendant board of education.

The Superior Court is not empowered, under the declaratory judgment act and rules of court thereunder, to decide claims of right which are purely hypothetical or are not of consequence as guides to the present conduct of the parties.The act requires, as a condition to the granting of a declaratory judgment, that there must be an actual, bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute, or a substantial uncertainty of legal relations which requires settlement.

Theodore Koskoff, of Stratford, for the Plaintiff.

Pullman & Comley, of Bridgeport, for the Defendants.

Memorandum of decision on demurrer to complaint in action for declaratory judgment.

SIMPSON, J.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment brought against the Town of Stratford, town council and board of education of the town.

The plaintiff describes himself as a taxpayer of the town and as having been engaged in business in the town, and that prior to the date of the complaint he had from time to time made contracts with the town and board of education, and that conflict exists between the parties concerning which partiesdefendants have the power to enter into contracts with the plaintiff, particularly with regard to the repair and maintenance of the public school buildings.

He further alleges the town, through its finance committee and town manager, has assumed to make such contracts, contrary to the power given the board of education by statute to expend at its discretion any monies appropriated according to law for the maintenance of the public school buildings in the Town of Stratford.

It also appears that the plaintiff at present has no contract with either the partiesdefendants for the repair or maintenance of such school buildings.

It therefore appears that there are at present existing no jural relations between the plaintiff and defendants.What he wants to know in reality is what would be his right if and when he entered into a contract with either of the defendants and whether or not the board of education has the sole power to make such contracts.

As a general rule " a declaratory relief statute only justifies a declaration of rights upon an existing state of facts, not one upon a state of facts which may or may not arise in the future.Nor will future rights be determined in anticipation of an event that may never happen."87 A.L.R. 1205, 1215, annotation and cases cited.Thus, in Heller v. Shapiro, 208 Wis. 310, 242 N.W. 174(Anno 87 A.L.R. 1201), the court held that a declaration of rghts is justified only upon existing facts and not upon a state of facts which may or may not arise in the future, and refused to grant a declaratory judgment respecting plaintiff's rights as to subrogation when they paid off a mortgage if they did pay it; in Dobson v Ocean Accident & G. Corp . 124 Neb. 652, 247 N.W. 789 it was held that the declaratory judgment act does not require courts to decide or declare rights or status of parties upon a state of facts which is future, contingent or uncertain, and only when justiciable issues are present and all interested persons are made parties to the proceeding; in DiFabio v. Southard, 106 N.J. Eq. 157, 150 A. 248, it was held that to maintain a bill for a declaratory judgment it should appear that the plaintiff has present rights against(italics, the court's) the persons whom he makes partiesdef...