Reese v. Adamson

• Citation: 146 A. 262,297 Pa. 13
• Decision Date: 13 May 1929
• Docket Number: 20
• Parties: Reese et al., Appellants, v. Adamson et al
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

146 A. 262

297 Pa. 13

Reese et al., Appellants, v. Adamson et al

No. 20

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 13, 1929

Argued April 17, 1929

Appeal, No. 20, Jan. T., 1930, by plaintiffs, from order of C.P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1929, No. 514, dismissing petition for declaratory judgment, in case of Frank C. Reese et al., Directors of the Poor and of the House of Employment of Schuylkill County, or directors of the Schuylkill County Poor District, v. W. R. Adamson, controller of Schuylkill County, James R. Walton et al., commissioners of Schuylkill County and Robert Jenkins, treasurer of Schuylkill County. Affirmed.

Petition for declaratory judgment. Before KOCH, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Petition dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was the order, quoting it.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

George M. Paxson and H. O. Bechtel, for appellants.

John O Adamson, Controller's Solicitor, and Chas. E. Berger County Solicitor, for appellees, were not heard.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The three plaintiffs, describing themselves as "Directors of the Poor and of the House of Employment for the County of Schuylkill, or Directors of the Schuylkill County Poor District," petitioned for a declaratory judgment, naming the controller and the treasurer of Schuylkill County, together with three county commissioners, as defendants. The court below dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to show the existence of an actual or potential controversy between the parties and merely asked for an advisory judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed.

In Kariher's Petition (No. 1), 284 Pa. 455, where we sustained the constitutionality of the Declaratory Judgments Act of June 18, 1923, P.L. 840, we said (p. 463) that, in order to obtain such a judgment, "It is not required that an actual wrong should have been done, such as would give rise to an action for damages, and no wrong need be immediately threatened, such as would be the proper basis for an injunction," but (page 464) "a real controversy must exist"; further, (page 471) that "jurisdiction will never be assumed unless the tribunal appealed to is satisfied that an actual controversy, or the ripening seed of one, exists between the parties, . . . and that the declaration sought will be a practical help in ending the controversy." Again we said (page 472), "In a declaratory judgment proceeding, the court will not decide future rights in anticipation of an event which may not happen, but, just as in the ordinary executory action, it will wait until the event actually takes place, unless special circumstances appear which warrant an immediate decision, as, for instance, where present rights depend on the declaration sought by plaintiff." See Girard T. Co. v. Tremblay M. Co., 291 Pa. 507, 524-5.

Here the petition fails to aver an actual controversy between plaintiffs and defendants, or to set forth facts which show either such a controversy or what in the Kariher Case we termed the "ripening seed" of one. After calling attention to the old special Act of April 4, 1831, P.L. 422, concerning the Poor District of Schuylkill County, and the recent Act of May 14, 1925, P.L. 762, known as "The General Poor Relief Act," plaintiffs allege numerous inconsistencies between the two, and then aver, "as a result of [these] contradictory and repugnant provisions . . ., your petitioners are uncertain and insecure with respect to . . . their legal status [and] the duties imposed upon them with regard to the provisions of [these] several acts." After this they pray the court to declare their "rights, status and other legal relations . . . in the premises," to the end that they "may...