Opinion ID: 1963229
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: status of the plaintiff

Text: The next question involved is whether the plaintiff, a state administrative officer, has the requisite capacity to maintain this suit. The pertinent portion of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law contained in N.J.S. 2 A :16-53 provides: A person    whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute,    contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the    statute    contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. It is settled that proceedings of this nature are restricted by the general rule of law that requires an action to be prosecuted in the name of a real party in interest. New Jersey Bankers Ass'n v. Van Riper, 1 N.J. 193, 196 (1948); Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (2 nd ed. 1941), Part II, chapter III, pp. 255 et seq. Where a statute is questioned on constitutional grounds and that statute affects a state officer's duties or the use of personnel and funds of his department, he is deemed an indispensable defendant to the action. It has been so held with respect to the State Highway Commissioner, the state officer involved in this suit (although the office was then occupied by a person other than the present plaintiff), in New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Parsons, supra (3 N.J., at page 240). Cf. In re Van Syckle, 118 N.J.L. 578, 580 ( E. & A. 1937). It has been stated that public officers are entitled to have their legal duties determined judicially by action for declaratory judgment. 1 Anderson, Declaratory Judgments (1951), sec. 159, p. 307. And it has stated that the state itself and its political subdivisions and bureaus are proper parties plaintiff. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (1941), pp. 264. Cf. City of Mobile v. Board of Water and Sewer Com'rs., 258 Ala. 669, 64 So. 2 d 824, 825 ( Ala. Sup. Ct. 1953); Board of Public Works of Rolla v. Sho-Me Power Corp., 362 Mo. 730, 244 S.W. 2 d 55, 61-62 ( Mo. Sup. Ct. 1951); State ex rel. Smrha, Director of Insurance v. General American Life Ins. Co., 132 Neb. 520, 272 N.W. 555, 557-558, ( Sup. Ct. 1937). Further, there is precedent for resort by a governmental agency to an action for a declaratory judgment to settle disputed matters in connection with a condemnation proceeding. See Syracuse Grade Crossing Comm. v. Delaware L. & W.R. Co., 197 Misc. 192, 97 N.Y.S. 2 d 279 ( Sup. Ct. 1941), modified on other grounds, 263 App. Div. 930, 32 N.Y.S. 2 d 620 ( App. Div. 1942), affirmed per curiam 290 N.Y. 632, 49 N.E. 2 d 131 ( Ct. App. 1943). Cf. Black River Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, 282 App. Div. 161, 121 N.Y.S. 2 d 893, 898 ( App. Div. 1953). Public officials of the status of the plaintiff stand in a fiduciary relationship to the people whom they have been elected or appointed to serve. Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 8 N.J. 433, 474 (1952), certiorari denied 344 U.S. 838, 73 S.Ct. 25, 97 L.Ed. 652 (1952), rehearing denied 344 U.S. 888, 73 S.Ct. 181, 97 L.Ed. 687 (1952). The plaintiff has the right to protect his cestuis que trust and in doing so his interest in protecting the public from use of its moneys for the benefit of private parties by virtue of an invalid statute seems undeniable. The right to resort to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law in an analogous respect has been accorded to fiduciaries generally, Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Price, 11 N.J. 90 (1952), and we perceive no substantial cause for the application of a divergent philosophy in the matter presented for declaration in the instant proceedings. For these reasons we conclude that the plaintiff was clothed with the proper status to maintain an action for a declaratory judgment.