Court Opinion

ID: 9794092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:58:58.375988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:34.617717
License: Public Domain

*415On Motion for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
On motion for rehearing plaintiff contends that the action before us is one for declaratory judgment.
We do not so construe the complaint, but if we assume it is  one for a declaratory judgment, it is not one that attacks the statute but merely one that questions the validity of the order of the defendant board. It is of no consequence that the order complained of was made without notice to plaintiff and without a hearing. If affects no right of plaintiff. It simply amounted to notice to plaintiff that defendant intends to enforce the provisions of R. C. M. 1947, sec. 50-435. It is unlike Fredenberg v. Whitney, D. C., 240 F. 819, relied on by plaintiff, in which case the order complained of imposed a fine and attempted to suspend the license of plaintiff, under rules having the force and effect of law.
Whether plaintiff had 12 persons actually engaged in mining  and whether water is available, which are the other two grounds of challenging the order, can be raised in proceedings designed to enforce the statute or in proceedings questioning the validity of the statute.
The order complained of here is nothing more than a statement that defendant intends to perform its duties as commanded by statute by enforcing compliance with the statute.
The motion for rehearing is denied.