Kays v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 11 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 156 |
| Citation | 224 S.W. 617,145 Ark. 303 |
| Parties | KAYS v. BOYD |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court, Joneboro District; R. H Dudley, Judge; appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
A. P Patton, for appellants.
1. The court should have sustained appellants's demurrer. 106 Ark. 174. The circuit court was without jurisdiction, as the proceeding was against the State. 102 Ark. 470; Act 100, Acts 1909; 102 Ark. 482; 98 Id. 525; 48 Id. 426 443; 1 Id. 570; 3 Id. 430; 34 U.S. (Law Ed.), 815; 44 Id. 775.
2. The court erred because its judgment is contrary to law and the evidence.
E. L. Westbrooke, for appellee.
1. The evidence is voluminous, and the finding of facts was for Boyd on the issues. It will not be disturbed. 111 Ark. 449; 112 Id. 243; 109 Id. 158; 117 Id. 223; 122 Id. 349; 101 Id. 493.
2. There was no legal meeting of the board of trustees for any purpose. There was only an informal meeting by three of the members without notice to the others. The action was void. 105 Ark. 106-9; 90 Id. 335; 83 Id. 491; 69 Id. 159; 67 Id. 236; 64 Id. 689; 52 Id. 511. Notice not having been given, the action of the trustees was void and the remedy was mandamus. 89 Ark. 258.
3. This is not a suit against the State, nor a suit at all. Const., art. 5, § 19; Ib., art. 14, §§ 1-3; Act 100, Acts 1909; 45 Ark. 123; 106 Id. 174; 102 Id. 470; 18 R. C. L. 126; 41 Mo. 226; 51 Cal. 338. Mandamus lies. 6 Ark. 9; 187 U.S. 94; 26 Cyc. 161.
On the 31st day of January, 1920, appellee filed a petition for mandamus in the circuit court against appellants to compel them to reinstate him in the State Agricultural School of the First District of Arkansas.
The material facts upon which the petition is based are as follows: Appellants were the trustees of the State Agricultural School of the First District of Arkansas, and suspended Fred Boyd, a student of the school, for conduct unbecoming a gentleman, as it was expressed in the order of suspension.
Appellee introduced evidence tending to show that the order of suspension was wrong, and appellants introduced evidence to sustain the order of the board of trustees, suspending him.
On the 16th day of February, 1920, the circuit court tried the case, sitting as a jury, and found that the order of the board of trustees suspending Boyd on January 26, 1920, was wrong. It was therefore by the court ordered and adjudged that Boyd be reinstated in the school, and that he be restored to all the rights and privileges belonging to the students of the school.
An appeal was prayed by the board of trustees and a transcript was filed in this court on the 11th day of May, 1920. The case was duly reached on the call of the calendar and submitted to this court.
Appellee states that the term of the school has passed pending the appeal, and that there is now no actual controversy involving real and substantial rights between the parties to the record.
It is the duty of this court to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect and not to give opinions upon abstract propositions or to declare principles of law which can not affect the matter in issue in the case at bar. In the case at bar the court granted the prayer of the petitioner and ordered the board of trustees to restore him to full scholarship in the Agricultural School. He says this was done. The term has lapsed pending the appeal of the board to this court. Therefore, a decision of the case could have no practical application to the controversy between the litigants.
In a case note to Ann. Cas. 1912 C, at page 247, it is said that the current cases have held that a court in reviewing a decision upon an application for a writ of mandamus will not disturb the judgment of the lower court, where, pending the appeal, an event occurs whereby the question litigated and determined below has ceased to be of any practical importance, but is academic merely. See also case note to 5 Ann. Cas., at p. 626, and Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 40 L.Ed. 293, 16 S.Ct. 132.
It will be readily seen from the statement of facts that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caddo Central Oil & Refining Corporation v. Boatright & Cheesman
...Appellant voluntarily withdrew the picture and refused to offer in evidence the others. If there was error, it was invited. 151 Ark. 35; 145 Ark. 303. Case in point 15 L. R. A (N. S.) See also 85 Ark 30; 98 Ark. 583; 142 Ark. 584; 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1007. The verdict is supported by the evi......
-
Letaw v. Smith
...the litigants. Pearson v. Quinn, 113 Ark. 24, 166 S.W. 746; Tabor v. Hipp, 136 Ga. 123, 70 S.E. 886, Ann.Cas. 1912C 246.' In Kays v. Boyd, 145 Ark. 303, 224 S.W. 617, we 'It is the duty of this court to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to g......
- Berringer v. Stevens
-
Pugsley v. Sellmeyer
...The motion to dismiss appeal is without merit, the controversy between the parties not being settled, and should be dismissed. Case unlike 224 S.W. 617 or cases collected in Ann. Cas. 628, showing dismissal where acts sought to be completed had been performed and where time for performance ......