The State moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs lacked capacity to challenge the validity of a legislative enactment. The trial court ruled that municipalities lack capacity to sue the State and dismissed the case as to the municipalities, but allowed thirty days to substitute other plaintiffs. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiffs make two contentions on appeal.
We agree with the trial court and the State that the Declaratory Judgments Act provided a procedural vehicle and remedy that was not previously available to litigants in general, but the Act did not extend the jurisdiction of the courts over subject matter or parties. See Gifford Memorial Hosp. Thus, if the municipalities do not have capacity to sue, as the trial court decided, the Declaratory Judgments Act does not provide it. Plaintiffs also challenge the trial court's conclusion that they lack capacity to sue the State. Incapacity to sue exists where there is some legal disability, such as infancy or lunacy, or a want of title in the plaintiff to the character in which he sues.