Nicholson v. Cummings

Decision Date17 January 1949
Citation217 S.W.2d 942
PartiesNICHOLSON v. CUMMINGS, Mayor.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

C. W. Tuley, of Nashville, for appellant.

E. C. Yokley, of Nashville, for appellee.

GAILOR, Justice.

This appeal presents a bill filed for a declaratory judgment in Part I of the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee. The Chancellor denied the relief sought and dismissed the bill. The complainant has perfected his appeal.

Prior to the present controversy the complainant operated a retail liquor store at 500 Broad Street in Nashville and desiring to remove his place of business from that address to 417 8th Avenue South, and simultaneously to procure a State liquor license at the new address, complainant applied to the defendant Mayor (1) for the approval of his application for a State liquor license, and (2) for the approval of the defendant Mayor, of the change of the place of business from 500 Broad Street to 417 8th Avenue South. In the original bill, complainant stated that the Mayor had approved both the application for the State Liquor license and the application for change of address. In his answer, the defendant Mayor admitted that he had approved the application for the liquor license but specifically denied that he had approved the application for change of address.

We think the action of the Chancellor in denying the relief sought and dismissing the bill must be approved for two reasons: (1) The Chancellor had a wide discretion under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, and where as here, a declaration could be made only after an investigation and determination of disputed facts, the application for a declaration was properly refused. Hinchman v. City Water Co., 179 Tenn. 545, 561, 167 S.W.2d 986; Harrell v. American Home Mortg. Co., 162 Tenn. 371, 36 S.W.2d 888. (2) In the present controversy, on the facts averred in the bill and admitted or denied in the answer, the declaration would not terminate any controversy, nor determine present rights of either party. If the Chancellor's declaration had been made in favor of the complainant as it was prayed in the bill, it could have been no more than a stepping-stone to further litigation. That being true, the dismissal of the bill and refusal of the declaration was proper. Harrell v. American Home Mortg. Co., supra; Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891; Coleman v. Henry, 184 Tenn. 550, 554, 201 S.W.2d 686.

Decree affirmed.

All concur.

On Petition to Rehear.

Petition to rehear has been filed, in which it is insisted that the Court erred in affirming the Chancellor's decree, and in stating in our former opinion (1) that the bill as presented, was not properly one for a declaratory judgment, and (2) that it was necessary for the Chancellor to determine disputed issues of fact.

(1) The case was before us from the Chancery Court on broad appeal. Questions of law were, therefore, to be considered by us de novo. The members of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 27 April 1956
    ...S.W.2d 913. We think it is true also that the court should not act arbitrarily in refusing to entertain such a suit. Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942; Newsum v. Interstate Realty Co., 152 Tenn. 302, 278 S.W. 56; and Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Krejci, 7 Cir., 123 F.2d 5......
  • Shelby County Bd. of Com'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 15 July 1965
    ...could not settle the controversy sub judice. Defendants submit as authority for this proposition the case of Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942 (1949). In the Nicholson case it was held the forcing of a Mayor of a municipality to issue a retail liquor license was not a pro......
  • Southern Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cooper
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 8 June 1956
    ...in refusing a declaration should not be disturbed by this, an Appellate, Court unless such refusal be arbitrary. Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 205, 217 S.W.2d 942. Hence, consideration should be given first to the question of whether the refusal of the trial court to make a declarat......
  • Woodruff v. Fort Sanders Sevier Medical Center, No. E2007-00727-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 1/16/2008), E2007-00727-COA-R3-CV.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 16 January 2008
    ...facts must first necessarily be determined. Newsun v. Interstate Realty Co., 152 Tenn. 302, 278 S.W.56, (1925); Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942 (1949). Accordingly, we reverse the Trial Court's determining, as a matter of declaratory judgment, the issue of whether the c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT