In re Manning
| Decision Date | 10 October 1893 |
| Citation | 139 N.Y. 446,34 N.E. 931 |
| Parties | In re MANNING, Mayor. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, third department.
Application of Charles H. Armatage for mandamus to James H. Manning, mayor of the city of Albany. From an order of the general term (24 N. Y. Supp. 1039) reversing an order of the special term granting a writ, petitioner appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Edwin Countryman and Andrew Hamilton, for appellant.
John A. Delehanty, for respondent.
In this proceeding the special term made an order on the 6th of March, 1893, granting a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding James H. Manning, mayor of Albany, forth with to cause to be published, as required by section 15 of chapter 171 of the Laws of 1892, in the official city papers, the lists of Democratic inspectors of election and poll clerks appointed by the board of election commissioners of the city upon the resolution of Charles H. Armatage, the petitioner, and chairman of the board, to act at a local election to be held in said city April 11, 1893, and for which registration of voters was to be made March 11, 1893. The mayor appealed from the order granting the writ, and the general term reversed it in September, 1893, and the petitioner has appealed to this court.
The statute requires that inspectors and poll clerks shall be appointed at each election. Their power to perform any official duties expires after the election for which the appointment is made has been held. Any decision, therefore, which we can make on this appeal, can have no practical effect. If, for instance, we should reverse the order of the general term and affirm that of the special term, as we are asked to do by the appellant, the latter order could not be enforced, as the election has been held, and the time and occasion for the inspectors to act has long since passed. The appeal does not now present an actual litigation, but an abstract question. The practice of this court has been to refuse to entertain appeals when it is plain that nothing can be accomplished by the decision. The inspectors and clerks selected for the election of April last cannot be appointed. There is no office to fill, and there are no duties for them to perform. To require now that their names be published would be to do a vain thing, and this court has uniformly dismissed the appeal when, from lapse of time, no decision could be made that would have any practical effect upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Battaglia
...to permit the examination or discussion of academic questions," the New York Court of Appeals once observed. See In re Manning , 34 N.E. 931, 139 N.Y. 446, 448 (N.Y. 1893). The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed "an abstract question" in an insolvency proceeding because "judicial tribunal......
-
Bell v. Battaglia
... ... around the same impetus. "The demands of actual, ... practical litigation are too pressing to ... permit the examination or discussion of academic ... questions," the New York Court of Appeals once observed ... See In re Manning , 34 N.E. 931, 139 N.Y. 446, 448 ... (N.Y. 1893). The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed ... "an abstract question" in an insolvency proceeding ... because "judicial tribunals are not organized for the ... purpose of rendering decisions which can be of no possible ... ...
-
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
...of this court upon the moot questions assumed to be involved herein. (Hutchinson Co. v. Local Union, 125 P. 15 (Kans.) In re Manning, 139 N.Y. 446; 34 N.E. 931; v. Smith, 47 P. 591; Harrabin v. City, 142 N.W. 212; Meyers v. Kansas City, 136 P. 898; Hicks v. Pearce, 122 N.W. 1087; Lockwood v......
-
Click v. Sample
...26 S.W. 1116; 156 U.S. 651; 62 Ga. 747; 2 Cent. Dig. "App. & Error," § 69; 61 F. 208; 82 N.Y. 575; 49 Hun, 607; 95 N.C. 515; 35 S.C. 602; 139 N.Y. 446, c. 34 N.E. 931; 113 U.S. 216; 2 Johns. Ch. 317; 127 N.C. 243, s. c. 37 S.E. 263; 126 N.C. 86, s. c. 35 N.E. 228; 125 N.C. 437, s. c. 34 S.E......