Lamoreux v. Williams
| Decision Date | 03 October 1905 |
| Citation | 125 Wis. 543,104 N.W. 813 |
| Parties | LAMOREUX v. WILLIAMS ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Eau Claire County; James O'Neill, Judge.
Action by C. A. Lamoreux against Burt Williams and another. From an order for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.
This is an appeal from a temporary injunctional order. The complaint and affidavit upon which the order was based showed that in February, 1905, nomination papers in due form were filed in the office of the defendant Fisher, city clerk of the city of Ashland, nominating both the plaintiff and the defendant Williams as Republican candidates for the nomination as mayor of that city at the primary election called for March 21, 1905; that there was also filed a nomination paper nominating the defendant Williams as a Democratic candidate for nomination for the same office; that the defendant Williams claimed that his name should be printed on both the Republican and Democratic tickets upon the Australian ballot to be used at such primary; and that the defendant Fisher threatened to so print the ballot. Upon these facts the circuit court enjoined the clerk by order from printing Williams' name on the primary ballot until he should file a written statement indicating the party designation under which his name should be placed, and, in case of failure so to do, directing the clerk to place the name upon one of the tickets, and only upon one. From this order the appeal is taken.F. J. Colignon (Dillon & Colignon, of counsel), for appellants.
W. M. Tompkins and John M. Flynn, for respondent.
WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).
The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the question at issue has ceased to be of any practical importance and is a mere moot question. It is apparent that a decision one way or the other will accomplish nothing, so far as the parties are concerned. Both the primary election and the municipal election, to which the primary was merely preliminary, have long since passed into history, and no judgment now made can in any way affect either election. There can be no actual controversy between the parties as to the manner of printing a primary ballot or conducting a primary election which performed its sole function more than six months ago. The principle is familiar that “courts sit only to decide actual controversies, and not to answer mere moot questions of law or fact.” Hogan v. La Crosse, 104 Wis. 106, 80 N. W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doering v. Swoboda
...has an existing right which the order or judgment appealed from, if erroneous, has substantially prejudiced.” Lamoreux v. Williams, 125 Wis. 543, 104 N. W. 813, 814. It was recently held that an order modifying a judgment of divorce as to the technical custody of a child for a limited perio......
-
Smith v. City of Whitewater
...ex rel. Hathaway v. Mirlach, 1921, 174 Wis. 11, 182 N.W. 331. No question of costs in the trial court was involved in Lamoreux v. Williams, 1905, 125 Wis. 543, 104 N.W. 813, upon which respondent relies. The order of May 15, 1947 did not assess costs. The appellants argue, however, that if ......
- Ellinger v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
-
State v. Seymour
...if a question becomes moot through a change in circumstances, it will not be determined by the reviewing court. Lamoreux v. Williams (1905), 125 Wis. 543, 104 N.W. 813; State ex rel. Schertz v. Spiegel (1920), 171 Wis. 260, 176 N.W. 1022, 6 Wisconsin Law Review (1930), 101. It is a well rec......