¹ Sunderland, A modern evolution in remedial rights, 16 Mich. L. Rev. 69 (1917); Borchard, , The declaratory judgment—a needed procedural reform, 28 Yale L. Jour. 1, 105 (1918)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kerr, , Declaration of rights without consequential relief, 53 Amer. L. Rev. 161 (1919)Google Scholar; Vinje, , Declaratory relief, 4 Marquette L. Rev. 106 (1920)Google Scholar; Schoonmaker, , Declaratory judgments, 5 Minn. L. Rev' 32 (1920)Google Scholar; Dodd, , Progress of preventive justice, 6 Amer. Bar Asso. Journ. 151 (1920)Google Scholar; Gates, , Declaratory relief, 1920 Proceedings of Tennessee Bar Asso., 41Google Scholar; Cooper, , Locking the stable door before the horse is stolen, 16 Ill. L. Rev. 436 (1922)Google Scholar; Gordon, , The law of declaratory judgments and its progress, 9 Va. L. Rev. 169 (1923)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Torrey, , The declaratory judgment, 8 Iowa Law Bulletin, 81 (1923).Google Scholar

² A few traces of conscious adoption of this form of relief may be found in the California Practice Act, §527, of 1850, enabling adverse claims to money or property to be determined. (See King v. Hall, 1855, 5 Cal. 83), and in Rhode Island, Acts of 1876, ch. 563, sec. 17, enabling declarations of right to be made by the courts. But when this was construed to require the existence of a possibility of obtaining coercive relief (Hanley v. Wetmore, 1886, 15 R. I. 386, 6 Atl. 777) it practically nullified the declaratory relief. Courts of equity in some states have also had statutory power to construe wills and in various cases, such as the removal of clouds from title, courts of equity had unwittingly, in a restricted class of cases, been rendering declaratory judgments. The class of cases under the new statutes is made practically unlimited.

³ The principal cases that have arisen under this Act are In re Ungaro's Will (1917) 88 N. J. Eq. 25, 102 Atl. 244; Renwick v. Hay (1919) 90 N. J. Eq. 148, 106 Atl. 547; Town of Kearny v. Mayor of Bayonne (1919) 90 N. J. Eq. 499, 108 Atl. 121, 29 Yale L. Jour. 545.

⁴ Florida, Laws 1919, ch. 7857 (No. 75). See 20 Columbia L. Rev. 106.

⁵ Conn., Pub. Acts 1915, ch. 174, sec. 1, 2 Gen. Stat. 1918, sec. 5113. Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co. (1915) 90 Conn. 63, 96 Atl. 149 (1917), 91 Conn. 500, 506, 100 Atl. 22.

⁶ Michigan, Public Acts 1919, No. 150, p. 278.Google Scholar

⁷ Wisconsin, Laws 1919, ch. 242, sec. 2687 m. p. 253.Google Scholar See Mr.Vinje, Justice in 4 Marquette Law Rev. 106.Google Scholar

⁸ Anway v. Grand Rapids Ry. Co. (1920) 211 Mich. 592, 179 N. W. 350, 12 A. L. R. 25, 62. See comments in 19 Mich. Law Rev. 86, 30 Yale Law Jour. 161, 21 Columbia Law Rev. 168, 4 Illinois Law Quar. 126, 6 Amer. Bar Asso. Journal 145; 7 Ibid., 141, 7 Cornell Law Quarterly 255, and the following articles: Rice, in 28 West Va. Law Quar. 1Google Scholar and Schoonmaker, in 5 Minn. Law Rev. 172.Google Scholar

⁹ Wisconsin, Laws 1923Google Scholar, ch. 440. (1924) 2 Wisconsin Law Rev. 376. In one interesting case in Wisconsin, tbe constitutionality of the Act seems to have been assumed, the court holding that members of a fraternal society who under an existing policy would obtain a certain pension at the age of 70 had no such vested interest as could not be modified by a change in the by-laws. United Order of Foresters v. Miller (1922) 178 Wis. 299, 190 N. W. 198. The Wisconsin Supreme Court expressed no doubt on question of constitutionality. Judge Rodenbeck in New York, Board of Education v. Van Zandt (1921) 119 Misc. 124, said that the constitutionality of “such a procedure is not open to question.” The same conclusion has been reached by the Connecticut Supreme Court, Braman v. Babcock (1923) 98 Conn. 549, 120 Atl. 150, and by the California Supreme Court, Blakeslee v. Wilson (1923) 213 Pac. 495.

¹⁰ Declaration sought that a “news reel” was not subject to the censorship of the ordinary exhibition; held, that it was. Pathé Exchange v. Cobb (1922) 202 App. Div. 450, 236 N. Y. 37. Action for a declaration by the Board of Education against the Board of Estimate of Rochester that the tax limit of 2 per cent on assessed valuation for “city purposes” was exclusive and not inclusive of school funds; held, for defendant. Board of Education v. Van Zandt (1922) 119 Misc. 124, 204 App. Div. 856, aff. 234 N. Y. 644, 23 Columbia L. Rev. 69. Action for a declaration by a street railway company against the City of New York that the plaintiff's construction of a franchise contract was correct; so held. The action was brought just before expiration of the renewal period, whereby breach and irreparable damage were avoided. Manhattan Bridge Three Cent Line v. City of New York (1922) 204 App. Div. 89, 236 N. Y. 57. Action for a declaration that under a contract of sale of a newspaper having political advertising patronage, reserving bills payable to the plaintiff seller and assigning political patronage to the buyer, an accrued bill for past advertising in hands of State Comptroller was “bills payable” and not “political patronage”; so held. Durant v. Whedon (1922) 201 App. Div. 196. Action by Comptroller Craig against Sinking Fund Commissioners of New York City asking for a declaration that a city ordinance and the city charter disabled the commissioners from passing any binding resolution (in this case for the sale of city buildings to provide land for schools) without the Comptroller's presence; so held. (Appellate Division, 1st Dept., Jan. 1924, New York Law Journal, Feb. 23, 1924.) The Court in this case said: “It would be difficult to find a more appropriate case for the application of the law permitting declaratory judgments.”

¹¹ Connecticut, Acts, 1921Google Scholar, ch. 258, Rules of Practice, 62–66; Kansas, Acts, 1921Google Scholar, ch. 168; California, Statutes 1921Google Scholar, ch. 463, Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1060–1062; Hawaii, Laws 1921, ch. 162.Google Scholar

¹² Braman v. Babcock (1923) 98 Conn. 549, 120 Atl. 150, in which plaintiff asked for a declaration that he was the person mentioned as legatee in a certain will; while sustaining their general power to issue declarations, the court declined in this case because the land affected was located in Rhode Ieland. Joy Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. (1923) 98 Conn. 794, 120 Atl. 684, in which plaintiff, a contractor, whose rights against a surety company had to be invoked within a limited time and depended upon the liability of his subcontractor to certain lienors, sought a declaration as to the amount due to the lienors; the declaration was issued. Lehmaier v. Bedford (1923) 99 Conn. 468, 121 Atl. 810, in which a certain life director of a hospital association brought an action against the elected directors for a construction of the articles of association and a declaration that the life directors were privileged to vote in all matters; so held.

¹³ State ex rel Hopkins v. Grove (1921) 109 Kan. 619, 201 Pac. 83, 19 A. L. R. 1124, in which the plaintiff, the State, sought a declaration that the defendant, employed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad, was not eligible to the office of city commissioner, under a state statute, because his employer held a franchise from the city; so held. State v. Wooster (1922) 111 Kan. 830, 208 Pac. 656 (declaring the powers of a state board of education); State v. Kansas City (1922) 110 Kan. 603, 204 Pac. 690, 20 Michigan Law Rev. 775, declaring the power of a city to issue bonds of a certain type. See the tribute to the declaratory judgment rendered in this case by Burch, J.

¹⁴ California legislation of 1921 providing for declaratory relief, by Harrison, Maurice E. (1921) 9 California Law Rev. 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Newberry v. Newberry, Los Angeles Superior Court, commented upon adversely in 10 California Law Rev. 158.

¹⁶ Blakeslee v. Wilson (1923, Cal.) 213 Pac. 495, 4 Iowa Law Bull. 272, declaring the plaintiff's rights under a contract of employment as attorney of defendant.

¹⁷ Kentucky, Acts 1922, ch. 83Google Scholar; Virginia, Acts 1922Google Scholar, ch. 517; South Carolina, Statutes at Large, 1922, Ch. 542.Google Scholar In Proctor v. Avondale Heights Co. (1923, Ky.) 255 S. W. 81, the Kentucky court construed the act in an action by a land company asserting their power and privilege to convey to a water company certain lots reserved, among others, for parks.

¹⁸ Pennsylvania, Laws 1923Google Scholar, ch. 321; Tennessee, Acts 1923, ch. 29Google Scholar; Colorado, Acts 1923, ch. 98Google Scholar; Wyoming, Acts 1923, ch. 50Google Scholar; North Dakota, Acts 1923, ch. 237.Google Scholar