Redmond v. Matthies

• Decision Date: 17 April 1962
• Citation: 180 A.2d 639,149 Conn. 423
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Janet P. REDMOND et al. v. Franklyn B. MATTHIES et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 639

180 A.2d 639

149 Conn. 423

Janet P. REDMOND et al. v. Franklyn B. MATTHIES et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 17, 1962.

William A. Phillips, New Haven, with whom was John S. Williams, for appellants (plaintiffs).

John S. Barton, Bridegport, with whom were Curtis V. Titus, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, William B. Rush, Bridgeport, for appellees (named defendant et al.).

Jacob D. Zeldes, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, were David Goldstein and Irving J. Alter, Bridgeport, for appellee-defendant Katharine Matthies.

Carl A. Lundgren, Ansonia, for the appellees-defendants, Seymour Trust Company et al.

John F. Spindler, Stamford, for appellee-defendant Raymond E. Hackett.

Before KING, MURPHY and SHEA, JJ., and SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, Superior Court Judges.

KING, Associate Justice.

The facts necessary for an understanding of our decision may be set forth in abbreviated and simplified form. The plaintiffs in the instant action for a declaratory judgment had been made defendants in a pending action which was instituted by some of the present defendants. The pending action, in essence, sought an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust, and damages from the present plaintiffs as the executrices, trustees and distributees under the will of Franklin Starr Jerome. In the pending action, it was alleged that Jerome, during his lifetime, individually and as a trustee of trusts created under the will of George E. Matthies, wrongfully appropriated to his own use funds of these trusts and of Delaware and Connecticut corporations in which the trusts had an interest. The plaintiffs in the pending action included the present trustees of certain of the trusts, which may be referred to as the Matthies trusts, and also the Seymour Manufacturing Company, a Connecticut corporation.

The present plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as to certain issues in the pending action. These issues are, in effect, whether a receiver or trustee appointed by the chancery courts of Delaware is the only person entitled to bring such an action as the pending one, as far as the assets of the Delaware corporations are concerned, and whether the plaintiff trustees in the pending action had been legally appointed, so as to be entitled, as trustees, to maintain that action. Another claim for a declaratory judgment was conditioned on the rendition of a declaratory judgment adverse to the present plaintiffs on one or both of the foregoing issues. If the plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaratory judgment on those issues, this claim need not be considered. In a final claim for relief, a temporary injunction was sought against the prosecution of the pending action until the final determination of this declaratory judgment action.

The court refused to grant a temporary injunction and thereafter sustained demurrers interposed by the defendants. On the plaintiffs' failure to plead over, judgment was rendered for the defendants. From this judgment the plaintiffs have appealed. The basic question to be determined is whether the court was in error in sustaining the demurrers. The plaintiffs incorporated, as exhibit A in their complaint, the complaint in the pending action and also, as exhibit B, a settlement agreement between certain of the present defendants which purported to assign the Jerome claims to trusts administered by the plaintiff trustees in the pending action. The two exhibits became part of the complaint in this action; Practice Book § 41; and must be so treated in the determination of the demurrers. Utley v. Nolan, 134 Conn. 376, 377, 58 A.2d 9.

As in the case of complaints in general, a complaint in a declaratory judgment action must contain allegations sufficient to show that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaratory judgment sought, under § 52-29 of the General Statutes as implemented by Practice Book, §§ 276 and 277. Lipson v. Bennett, 148 Conn. 385, 388, 171 A.2d 83; Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, 146 Conn. 644, 649, 153 A.2d 828, 79 A.L.R.2d 604; Bania v. Town of New Hartford, 138 Conn. 172, 175, 83 A.2d 165; see Holt v. Wissinger, 145 Conn. 106, 109, 139 A.2d 353.

The fundamental question presented here is one of alternative remedies. ¹ This question must be determined, on attack by demurrer, on the basis of the allegations of the complaint. Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing Authority, 144 Conn. 187, 194, 128 A.2d 540; see South Norwalk Trust Co. v. Knapp, 128 Conn. 426, 432, 23 A.2d 519. If, on these allegations, it affirmatively appears that the court could, in a reasonable exercise of its discretion, decide that a declaratory judgment action should be permitted, the demurrer should not be sustained. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Somers, 146 Conn. 708, 713, 156 A.2d 146; Connecticut Savings Bank v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 133 Conn. 403, 410, 51 A.2d 907. The reason, of course, is that it could not be determined, as matter of law, how the court should exercise a discretion which the allegations of the complaint showed that it possessed. But unless the allegations of the complaint include facts which show that the court has discretion to entertain the action, the complaint is vulnerable to attack by a properly drawn demurrer.

The instant action seeks much more than a determination of the effect, as res judicata, of a judgment in another action, as was the case in Connecticut Savings Bank v. First National Bank & Trust Co., supra, 405, 51 A.2d 907. Indeed, it goes far beyond any mere claim for a declaratory judgment determining some question connected with, or growing out of, another action. See cases such as Lloyd v. Weir, 116 Conn. 201, 204, 164 A. 386. Here, we are concerned with the specific application of § 277(c) of the Practice Book to situations where the subject matter of the declaratory judgment which is sought is already in issue in a case instituted prior to the institution of the declaratory judgment action. The instant action seeks to enjoin the further prosecution of a previously instituted pending action until issues therein are culled out and determined here--issues which could, and if properly raised would, be determined in the pending action. If such a procedure were generally permissible, it would be equally available for culling out and trying issues in any pending action--for example, an issue like assumption of risk.

The general rule is given in an annotation in 135 A.L.R. 934 as follows: '[J]urisdiction of a declaratory judgment action will not be entertained if there is pending, at the time of the commencement of the declaratory action, another action or proceeding to which the same persons are parties, in which are involved and may be adjudicated the same identical issues that are involved in the declaratory action.' But for some such rule, almost any pending action could be interrupted and held at bay until the determination, in one or more subsequently instituted declaratory judgment actions, of issues culled out of the pending action. Such a procedure would be intolerable in view of the present crowded condition of our trial court dockets. See Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, 146 Conn. 644, 650, 153 A.2d 828, 79 A.L.R.2d 604. It would also be entirely contrary to the modern concept which favors the determination of related matters in a single action. Colson v. Pelgram, 259 N.Y. 370, 375, 182 N.E. 19. Although the plaintiffs have seen fit to include, as defendants, not only all the parties plaintiff in the pending action but also other persons not parties plaintiff in that action, this fact does not, in and of itself, render this...