American Nat. Red Cross v. Brandeis MacHinery & Supply Co.

151 S.W.2d 445, 286 Ky. 665, 1941 Ky. LEXIS 314
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedMarch 25, 1941
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 151 S.W.2d 445 (American Nat. Red Cross v. Brandeis MacHinery & Supply Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Nat. Red Cross v. Brandeis MacHinery & Supply Co., 151 S.W.2d 445, 286 Ky. 665, 1941 Ky. LEXIS 314 (Ky. 1941).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Stanley, Commissioner—

Affirming.

The ease arises out of the catastrophic flood of 1937-which inundated two-thirds of the city of Louisville.

We closely abridge the pleadings. The petition of the Brandéis Machinery & Supply Company against American National Red Cross, a federal corporation, 36 U. S. C. A., Section 1 et seq,, and W. J. Rahill, al *667 leged that during the emergency, at Rahill’s instance, the plaintiff had delivered 19 pumps and accessories of the value of $4,805.86 to the temporary place of business and operation of the Red Cross in Louisville; he had represented himself as being the authorized agent of the Red Cross, and plaintiff had relied upon that representation; the Red Cross denied Rahill’s agency and anthority; Rahill insisted upon it, and both parties denied liability. It was alleged that plaintiff did not know which state of fact was true, that is, whether Rahill was the authorized agent or not, and that there existed an actual controversy among the parties. A declaration of rights was asked and judgment'for the amount stated was prayed against whichever defendant should be declared liable. Rahill questioned the plaintiff’s right to a declaratory judgment and to maintain the action against himself and another alternatively, and denied personal liability, alleging his authority to buy the pumps for the Red Cross to whom they had been delivered. The Red Cross did not question the propriety of the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment. It denied Rahill’s agency and its liability, alleging that the pumps had been bought for the City and the Louisville Trust Company, and made its pleading a cross-petition against them and Rahill, but prayed no relief against any of them. In effect it simply said to the plaintiff, “Here are the responsible parties.” But the plaintiff did not accept or undertake to hold either of them. The Red Cross elaborately set up the tender of its service to the City, County and State and its agreement with the Mayor’s Committee for Flood Relief and pleaded its limitation of financial liability, as will be developed in our summary of the evidence. The court sustained the cross-defendants’ motions to strike from and special demurrers to this pleading, and, when the Red Cross declined to plead further, dismissed so much of it as purported to be a cross-action.

There remained only a suit by the Brandéis Company against the Red Cross and Rahill seeking declaration as to whether the relation of principal and agent existed, and judgment consistent therewith for the value of the pumps, and the defendants’ respective answers joining issue. A jury trial was had, and at the close of the evidence the court gave a peremptory instruction to return a verdict for- Rahill and for the plaintiff against *668 the Red Cross for the amount sued for. Judgment was accordingly entered.

The Red Cross appeals from the judgment dismissing its cross-petition and that rendered against it for the value of the pumps.

The City and the Trust Company have moved to dismiss the appeal from the orders discharging them upon the ground that as a suit seeking a declaratory judgment, the appeal must have been filed within 120 days after its rendition. The final judgment in favor of the Brandéis Company was entered within 120 days of the filing of the appeal but that dismissing the other parties was not, there being an interval of 25 days between the two judgments. They also submit the further ground that a single appeal cannot be taken from four separate judgments in favor of four different parties (see Matney v. Edmonds, 179 Ky. 836, 201 S. W. 465), hence there is presented only an appeal against the first named in the statement of appeal, that is, the Brandéis Machinery & Supply Company. Rahill submits that ground and also that as the appellant, Red Cross, was not aggrieved by the judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against him it may not appeal therefrom

Rahill also presses his point as to the impropriety of a suit for a judicial declaration as to which of two parties is liable for the payment of a claim, and maintains the trial court should have sustained his motion to require plaintiff to elect.

It is, of course, conceded that under the terms of Section 113, Subsection 4, of the Civil Code of Practice, a party may not plead liability alternatively against one or another defendant. It is maintained, however, that such may be the practice in a declaratory judgment proceeding. Section 639a — 6, 639a — 9, Civil Code of Practice. The foreign cases construing the practice under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act in this respect are not harmonious. Manchester v. Townshend, 109 Vt. 65, 192 A. 22, 110 A. L. R., 811, and annotations. Since the trial court exercised its discretion not to make any kind of declaration of rights and treated the action as one at common law, we shall follow that course and decline to rule upon the points raised as to the propriety of the proceeding or of the particular practice. And our conclusion as to the merits of the case makes it needless *669 to pass specifically on the motions to dismiss the appeal. We shall treat them as timely and proper against all parties.

Inasmuch as no party, particularly the Red Cross, asked any relief or judgment against the City of Louisville or the Louisville Trust Company, it was proper to dismiss the cross-action against them, for as has often been said the court will not thrust upon a party something he does not ask. Holt’s Adm’r v. Johnson, 247 Ky. 180, 56 S. W. (2d) 962. It should be said in explanation of the omission that counsel assumed the suit to be properly one for a declaration of rights as the plaintiff designated it, and brought in these parties in order that there could be a complete declaration. Ex parte Hirsch’s Committee, 245 Ky. 132, 53 S. W. (2d) 211.

There emerges for our consideration only the question of giving the peremptory instruction in favor of the plaintiff, Brandéis Machinery & Supply Company, against the American National Red Cross. The Brandéis Company has not prosecuted an appeal from the judgment in favor of Rahill. The decision turns on the question of whether the evidence as a whole shows as a matter of law that Rahill was at the time an agent of the Red Cross, or there was a ratification of his purchase of the pumps by their acceptance or assumption of control by its unquestioned agents.

It is impracticable to review even as a summary all the evidence introduced during the trial, which covered four days. That is particularly true as to evidence collateral to and corroborative of the primary or essential facts. It will be understood that some of the statements of fact are our conclusions in respect thereto.

By Saturday, January 23,1937, there had been perfected a volunteer organization of citizens known as “The Mayor’s Committee for Flood Relief” to render service to the stricken inhabitatnts. The Mayor, Hon. Neville Miller, had placed W. J. Rahill, president of the Louisville Trust Company, in charge of buying whatever should be needed. The national organization of the Red Cross, the Public Health Service, and other outside agencies began to come to the aid of the stricken territory. On that Saturday, Nat C. Wilson, Director in Charge of Emergency Relief of the Red Cross, came.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Suhail v. University of the Cumberlands
107 F. Supp. 3d 748 (E.D. Kentucky, 2015)
Clark v. Burden
917 S.W.2d 574 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1996)
Mill Street Church of Christ v. Hogan
785 S.W.2d 263 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1990)
Rh Kyle Furniture Company v. Russell Dry Goods Company
340 S.W.2d 220 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1960)
Mosley v. Snider
160 F.2d 105 (Sixth Circuit, 1947)
Cook's Adm'r v. the Bank Josephine
191 S.W.2d 209 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1945)
Ohio Oil Co. v. Smith-Haggard Lumber Co.
156 S.W.2d 111 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 S.W.2d 445, 286 Ky. 665, 1941 Ky. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-nat-red-cross-v-brandeis-machinery-supply-co-kyctapphigh-1941.