Manafort Bros., Inc. v. Kerrigan

• Decision Date: 26 July 1966
• Citation: 154 Conn. 112,222 A.2d 218
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MANAFORT BROTHERS, INC., et al. v. John J. KERRIGAN et al.

Page 218

222 A.2d 218

154 Conn. 112

MANAFORT BROTHERS, INC., et al. v. John J. KERRIGAN et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

July 26, 1966.

James N. Egan, Hartford on the brief, for plaintiffs.

Richard M. Cosgrove, Corp. Counsel, and Richard J. Cromie, Asst. Corp. Counsel, on the brief, for defendants.

Before KING, C.J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, HOUSE and RYAN, JJ.

RYAN, Acting Justice.

This action seeking a declaratory judgment was reserved for the advice of this court on a stipulation of facts. The questions presented relate to the validity of certain sections of an ordinance in the Hartford municipal code concerning garbage, refuse and weeds. It appears from the substituted complaint and the stipulation that others have an interest in this litigation. It is not possible for this court to determine from the record who they are. The record does not indicate that all persons having an interest in the subject matter are parties to the action or were given reasonable notice thereof. The complaint contains no allegation of compliance with the requirements of Practice Book § 309(d), nor is the stipulation of Facts of any assistance.

'It is the settled rule of this jurisdiction, if indeed it may not be safely called an established principle of general jurisprudence, that no court will proceed to the adjudication of a matter involving conflicting rights and interests, until all persons directly concerning in the event have been actually or constructively notified of the pendency of the proceeding, and given reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard. This firmly fixed limitation, which, in effect if not technically in all cases, is a jurisdictional one, is as binding in English practice as it is with us.' Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 91 Conn. 500, 508, 100 A. 22, 25; Benz v. Walker, 154 Conn. --, 221 A.2d 841. 'The parties cannot, either by their silence or by their agreement, confer jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action. Samson v. Bergin, 138 Conn. 306, 309, 84 A.2d 273; New Haven Sand Blast Co. v. Dreisbach, 104 Conn. 322, 331, 133 A. 99.' Liebeskind v. City of Waterbury, 142 Conn. 155, 159, 112 A.2d 208, 210. 'It is fundamental that a declaratory judgment will not be rendered upon the complaint of any person unless all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof. Practice Book § 309(d); Connecticut Society of Architects, Inc. v. Bank Building & Equipment Corporation, 151 Conn. 68, 77, 193 A.2d 493; Brennan v. Russell, 133 Conn. 442, 445, 52 A.2d 308.' Riley v. Liquor Control Commission, 153 Conn. 242, 249, 215 A.2d 402, 406. On the record as presented in this case, it does not appear that this court has jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment. Wenzel v. Town of Danbury, 152 Conn. 675, 677, 211 A.2d 683.

Although this determination disposes of the matter, it should be noted in passing that the sections of the ordinance quoted in the stipulation of facts obviously represent only a portion of the entire ordinance. For example, paragraph 2 of the stipulation of facts indicates that 'the municipal code pertaining to garbage, refuse and weeds, and the collection of the same' was revised 'by adding certain amen...