Brownlow v. Schwartz

• Decision Date: 19 February 1923
• Docket Number: No. 95,95
• Citation: 261 U.S. 216,43 S.Ct. 263,67 L.Ed. 620
• Parties: BROWNLOW et al. v. SCHWARTZ
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

261 U.S. 216

43 S.Ct. 263

67 L.Ed. 620

BROWNLOW et al.

v SCHWARTZ.

No. 95.

Argued Jan. 16, 1923.

Decided Feb. 19, 1923.

Messrs. Robert L. Williams and F. H. Stephens, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. W. Gwynn Gardiner, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant in error, petitioner below, on June 9, 1920, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, praying for a writ of mandamus against respondents requiring them to issue to her a permit to erect a building for business purposes on a lot situated on a residence street in Washington. Prior to filing the petition she made preparations to erect the building and applied to the building inspector for a permit, which he declined to issue, upon grounds not necessary to be stated here.

The plaintiffs in error, respondents below, filed an answer to the petition and return to the rule to show cause, and to the answer a demurrer was interposed. On July 6, 1920, the demurrer was overruled, the rule to show cause discharged, and petition dismissed. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals this judgment was, on February 7, 1921, reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to issue the writ as prayed. Schwartz v. Brownlow, 50 App. D. C. 279, 270 Fed. 1019. On March 19, 1921, an application for a rehearing was overruled, and on June 13th following, this writ of error was allowed.

On March 14th, after the decision of the Court of Appeals, but before the allowance of the writ of error, the permit demanded by petitioner was issued by the building inspector, and thereupon the building was constructed. It had been fully completed when the writ of error was allowed. On June 2, 1921, petitioner conveyed all her interest in the property to persons not parties to this cause.

It thus appears that there is now no actual controversy between the parties—no issue on the merits which this court can properly decide. The case has become moot for two reasons: (1) Because the permit, the issuance of which constituted the sole relief sought by petitioner, has been issued and the building to which it related has been completed; and (2) because, the first reason aside, petitioner no longer has an interest in the building, and therefore has no basis for maintaining the action.

This court will not proceed to a determination when its judgment would be wholly ineffectual for want of a subject matter on which it could operate. An affirmance would ostensibly require something to be done which had already taken place. A reversal would ostensibly avoid an event which had already passed beyond recall. One would be as ain as the other. To adjudicate a cause which no longer exists is a proceeding which this court uniformly has declined to entertain. See Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 16 Sup. Ct. 132, 40 L. Ed. 293; Codlin v. Kohlhausen, 181 U. S. 151, 21 Sup. Ct. 584, 45 L. Ed. 793; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 556, 10 Sup. Ct. 620, 33 L. Ed. 1016; Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 699, 12 Sup. Ct. 103, 35 L. Ed. 906; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49, 24 Sup. Ct. 394, 48 L. Ed. 613; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 475, 36 Sup. Ct. 212, 60 L. Ed. 387; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 470, 37 Sup. Ct. 208, 61 L. Ed. 441; Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, ...