Gibson v. Board of Sup'rs of Cochise County
| Decision Date | 31 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | Civil 1629 |
| Parties | O. GIBSON, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA, and VANCE JOHNSON, J. M. SPARKS and JOHN ROCK, Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the county of Cochise denying a Writ of Prohibition. Frank Baxter, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Mr. O Gibson, for Appellant.
Mr. F M. Doan, Mr. W. P. Miller, Mr. A. M. Sames, and Mr. C. V Manatt, for Appellees.
Appellant sought a writ of prohibition against the appellees as members of the board of supervisors of Cochise county, to prevent and forbid them from hearing a petition for the removal of the county seat of said county, and from calling an election to submit the question of removal thereat, assigning as a reason why action by the board should not be taken the unconstitutionality of the county seat removal act, to wit, chapter 5, page 5, Regular Session Laws of 1915. The application was made on June 17, 1917, and thereafter, on November 10, 1917, the writ was denied and complaint dismissed. In due course appellant perfected his appeal.
We have come to the conclusion that the appeal ought to be dismissed for the reason that after it was taken, and while it was pending, an election on the question of the removal of the county seat of Cochise county was had, at which the electors of the county declared against the removal. While the record does not show such an election was had, nevertheless we take judicial notice that at the general election in November, 1918, the question of the removal of the county seat was submitted to the electors of the county and was voted upon by them. 16 Cyc. 901.
The relief sought by appellant -- that is, the prevention of the removal of the county seat of Cochise county -- was effectively settled in his favor at the election. A favorable decision of this court would not afford the appellant any other or further relief, for, by the terms of section 17, chapter 5, supra, the question of county seat removal cannot be again submitted for a period of six years from the November, 1918, election.
In 3 C.J. 360, section 115, it is said:
Belknap v. Hunt, ante, p. 148, 177 P. 932.
While we rest our decision upon the fact that the voters have decided the question so that it has become moot, w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst
...for determination an actual controversy, the cross-appeal is dismissed. Harrison v. Hunt, 28 Ariz. 75, 235 P. 158; Gibson v. Board of Supervisors, 20 Ariz. 222, 179 P. 640. The Act of 1948. The significant facts alleged in the complaint and admitted by the answer establish that appellant is......
-
Jackson v. Denver Producing & Refining Co., 1598.
...judicial notice of the results of an election for the removal of a county seat, Andrews v. Knox County, 70 Ill. 65; Gibson v. Board of Supervisors, 20 Ariz. 222, 179 P. 640; the re-election of a county recorder, Vinson v. O'Malley, 25 Ariz. 552, 220 P. 393, 37 A.L.R. 877; the election of ne......
-
Hawes v. Cooper
...See, Mueller v. City of Phoenix, Supra; Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst, 79 Ariz. 403, 291 P.2d 764 (1955); Gibson v. Board of Supervisors, 20 Ariz. 222, 179 P. 640 (1919); J. R. Francis Const. Co. v. Pima County, 1 Ariz.App. 429, 403 P.2d 934 The appellant contends by way of reply that ......
-
Hinton v. Hotchkiss
... ... from Superior Court, Maricopa County; Howard C. Speakman, ... Appeal ... dismissed ... Mo.App., 20 S.W.2d 293. In the case of Gibson v ... Board of Supervisors of Cochise County, 20 Ariz ... ...