Court Opinion

ID: 9642643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:05:07.489293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:50.369487
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones:
This opinion is written to clarify my concurrence only in the result reached by the majority of this Court.
I believe that vacation of the declaratory judgment entered by the court below in the case at bar is proper because (1) a statutory remedy was available for resolution of the questions presented, and (2) because all parties in interest were not joined in the proceeding.
However, I wish to completely disassociate myself from any statements or implications in the majority opinion which would indicate that I believe that the existence of an available nonstatutory remedy, per se, bars the entertainment of a declaratory judgment proceeding.1 My view on this subject has been expressed in Johnson Estate, 403 Pa. 476, 171 A. 2d 518; concurring and dissenting opinions in Holt Estate, 405 Pa. *111244, 174 A. 2d 874 and McWilliams v. McCabe, 406 Pa. 644, 179 A. 2d 222. From such view I have not departed. I believe the position taken by the majority of this Court on this subject is completely unsound.
Mr. Justice Cohen joins in this concurring opinion.

 The statement made in the course of tile opinion written by me in Lakeland Joint School District Authority v. Scott Township School District, 414 Pa. 451, 200 A. 2d 748 and quoted in tbe majority opinion, reflected tbe view of the majority of the Court, but not my view. Moreover, in Lakeland, there was no remedy, statutory or otherwise, available.