Los Angeles Transit Lines v. Dawson

MOORE, P. J. A motion to dismiss appellants’ action for ' declaratory relief having been granted on the ground that a declaration of the parties’ legal rights and duties was not necessary and proper under all the circumstances alleged, plaintiffs appeal from the order of dismissal.

The complaint alleges: On or about May 11, 1948, plaintiff Wilcox was operating a vehicle as agent of Los Angeles Transit Lines; on such date his vehicle collided with one driven by defendant Prettyman as agent for defendant Hughes; as a result of that collision the defendant Dawson, a pedestrian, was struck and injured; thereafter Dawson recovered judgment for $126,937.55 against plaintiffs and defendants Hughes and Prettyman; plaintiffs’ appeal from that judgment is now pending.

By way of explaining how the instant controversy arose, the complaint declares that on or about August 25, 1950, Dawson, Hughes and Prettyman entered into an agreement by which Dawson was to receive $50,000 from Hughes and his agent, Prettyman; that Mrs. Dawson contends this agreement does not constitute a release of Hughes, Prettyman or plaintiffs, and also that plaintiffs are not entitled to credit on the judgment she obtained against Hughes, Prettyman and plaintiffs herein. However, plaintiffs claim that such agreement does effect a release of all defendants in the prior suit and that it at least constitutes a partial satisfaction of the judgment ; that consequently an actual controversy exists as to the respective rights and duties of the parties.1

[578]The complaint closes with the prayer that the court declare the nature and extent of the rights and duties of the respective parties under the agreement of August 25, 1950. Thus, the only question presented for decision is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss the action.

[579]Section 1060, Code of Civil Procedure, provides that one who desires a declaration of his rights and duties with respect to another may bring an action for such declaration “in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties.”

The pleading clearly states the opposing views of two sides of a controversy with respect to a writing which was effected through the instrumentality of defendants for their advantage only and which, plaintiffs contend, operates for their benefit to the extent of not less than $50,000. Dawson as judgment creditor for $126,937.55 against defendants Hughes and Prettyman, had by the agreement promised to accept payment of $50,000 from Hughes and Prettyman and agreed sincerely to resist the appeal taken by Wilcox and Transit Lines. Yet, it also provides that Dawson will endeavor to collect the whole of the judgment from plaintiffs even though she has received the $50,000, making a possible total of $176,937.55—$50,000 more than the sum awarded under the judgment.