Keller v. Rewers
| Citation | 127 N.E. 149,189 Ind. 339 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | 23,322 |
| Parties | Keller, Mayor, et al. v. Rewers |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From St. Joseph Circuit Court; George Ford, Judge.
Suit by Wladyslaw Rewers against Fred W. Keller, Mayor, and others. From an interlocutory order in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Eli F. Seebiert and Daniel D. Schurtz, for appellant.
George A. Kurtz, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the St. Joseph Superior Court restraining the mayor, chief of police, and city controller of the city of South Bend, Indiana, as such officers, from interfering with appellee's property and his right to conduct and operate a saloon in the city of South Bend.
The order from which this appeal was taken was made on May 23, 1917. The cause was submitted in this court on July 13, 1917. No application to advance the cause has been made.
The only question originally presented by this appeal involved the authority of the mayor of the city of South Bend to revoke the license of appellee, who was then a duly licensed retail liquor dealer. The legislature in 1917 enacted a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor (Acts 1917 p. 15, § 8356d Burns' Supp. 1918), which became effective April 2, 1918. The legality of this law has been sustained by this court. Schmitt, Supt., v. F. W. Cook Brewing Co. (1918), 187 Ind. 623, 120 N.E. 19, 3 A. L. R. 270.
Since this law became effective it has been unlawful for any person to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquors in this state. All licenses authorizing the sale of intoxicating liquors prior to April 2, 1918, expired on that date; therefore, by operation of law, the question presented by this appeal at the time this case was distributed was a moot question, and is such at this time. State, ex rel. v. Noftzger (1910), 174 Ind. 140, 91 N.E. 562; Meyer v. Farmers' State Bank (1913), 180 Ind. 483, 103 N.E. 97.
We have examined the record and briefs on file, and have reached the conclusion that the question presented does not involve a matter of great public interest, or one affecting the public generally, and that any decision we might make herein will have no practical effect. Riley v. Bell (1915), 184 Ind. 110, 109 N.E. 843.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vesenmeir v. City of Aurora
...Riley v. Bell, 1915, 184 Ind. 110, 109 N.E. 843; Bullock v. Jameson, 1915, 183 Ind. 81, 108 N.E. 231; Keller, Mayor, v. Rewers, 1921, 189 Ind. 339, 127 N.E. 149; City of Bloomington v. Board of Com'rs, 1951, 229 Ind. 419, 99 N.E.2d 79; and see Mahuron v. City of Salem, The effect of sustain......
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Wheaton
... ... or affecting the public generally are involved, and these ... appeals should be dismissed. Kellerg the public generally are involved, and these ... appeals should be dismissed. Keller, Mayor, v ... Rewers ... ...
-
Holmes v. Negley, 13225.
...moot questions. State ex rel. v. Boyd, 172 Ind. 196, 87 N. E. 140;Meyer v. Bank, 180 Ind. 483, 103 N. E. 97;Keller, Mayor, v. Rewers, 189 Ind. 339, 127 N. E. 149. There is no public interest affected or involved in this appeal and no question, not moot, except the matter of costs, and juris......
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Wheaton
...not of great public interest or affecting the public generally are involved, and these appeals should be dismissed. Keller v. Rewers, 189 Ind. 339, 341, 127 N. E. 149. Appeals ...