Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

188 Tenn. 201

Nicholson v. Cummings

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1949

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1949-01-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The primary purpose of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act is the construction of definitely stated rights, status and other legal relations, commonly expressed in written instruments, though not confined thereto. Code 1932, sec. 8835 et seq.” “Courts have a wide discretion under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, which should be exercised with, utmost caution, and a declaratory judgment may properly he refused if it can be made only after a judicial investigation of disputed facts. Code 1932, sec. 8835 et seq.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hammond

Relies on Coleman v. Henry · Hinchman v. City Water Co. · 9 Smith & H. 371 - Harrell v. American Home Mortgage Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-01-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2018

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

4019491950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice G-ailor

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This 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 *203and dismissed the bill.- The complainant has perfected his appeal. ■

¶3Prior to the present controversy the complainant operated a retail liqnor 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 .orginal 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.

¶4We 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 steppingstone to *204furtimr 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.

¶5Decree affirmed.

All concur.
/188/tenn/201 · .json · Public domain