Agee v. Cate
Decision Date | 17 April 1913 |
Citation | 180 Ala. 522,61 So. 900 |
Parties | AGEE et al. v. CATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge.
Application for mandamus by T.M. Cate to compel W.C. Agee and others, members of the Excise Commission of Jefferson County, to issue a liquor license certificate to petitioner for the year 1912. From a judgment in favor of petitioner, respondents appeal. Dismissed.
Frank S. White & Sons, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Bowman, Howard & Weaver, Jesse D. Pope, and Fred Wall, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
This case originated in an application to the circuit court of Jefferson county for a writ of mandamus to compel the excise commission of that county to issue a certificate to the probate judge which would entitle petitioner to a renewal of his license as a wholesale liquor dealer for the year 1912. Issues of fact were formed, tried by a jury, and decided in favor of the petitioner, appellee. On appeal, the case was submitted in this court on November 26, 1912. Nothing was said in respect to the nature of the questions involved, and we did not become acquainted with them until we took up the record in the regular order of its submission, during the following March. The case had then become moot. It is not the practice of courts to decide cases after the time when a judgment may be made effective. Nor is it customary to decide questions of importance, after their decision has become useless, merely to ascertain who is liable for the costs. To this doctrine this court is fully committed. Comer v. Bankhead, 70 Ala. 136; State ex rel. Case v. Lyons, 143 Ala. 649, 39 So. 214; County of Montgomery v. Montgomery Traction Company, 140 Ala. 458, 37 So. 208. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. All the Justices concur, except DOWDELL, C.J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giglio v. Barrett
... ... parties is liable for the costs, as where the license year ... has expired for which issue was sought. Agee v ... Cate, 180 Ala. 522, 61 So. 900. This is not a moot case, ... seeking to determine an abstract question of law, when the ... question for ... ...
-
State ex rel. Burns v. Phillips
... ... Ala. 510, 41 So. 927; State ex rel. Case v. Lyons, ... 143 Ala. 649, 39 So. 214; Ex parte City of Mobile, 155 Ala ... 226, 46 So. 766; Agee v. Cate, 180 Ala. 522, 61 So ... 900; Ex parte McFry, 219 ... [33 So.2d 241.] ... Ala. 492, 122 So. 641; 34 Amer.Jur. 831, section 37 ... ...
-
Burke v. Coleman
... ... has become moot and should therefore be dismissed. As a ... matter of fact there have been several cases in other ... jurisdictions (Agee v. Cate, 180 Ala. 522, 61 So ... 900; Yent v. State, 66 Fla. 336, 63 So. 452; ... Hale v. Berg, 41 Ind.App. 48, 83 N.E. 357; State ... ex rel ... ...
-
Francis v. Scott
...So. 749; McCord v. Lanier, 207 Ala. 663, 93 So. 546; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. City of Montgomery, 193 Ala. 234, 69 So. 428; Agee v. Cate, 180 Ala. 522, 61 So. 900. One or the other of those appeals must be dismissed. We think it should be the first one, the instant case No. The foregoing op......