McDaniel v. Hurt

• Decision Date: 02 July 1906
• Citation: 41 So. 381,92 Miss. 197
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JAMES L. MCDANIEL ET AL. v. WALTER HURT ET AL.

41 So. 381

92 Miss. 197

JAMES L. MCDANIEL ET AL. v. WALTER HURT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 2, 1906

FROM the chancery court of Perry county, HON. THADDEUS A. WOOD Chancellor.

McDaniel and others, appellants, citizens and tax payers of Perry county were complainants in the court below; Hurt and others appellees, election commissioners of the county, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to enjoin the holding of a special election to fill a vacancy in the office of sheriff of the county. A preliminary injunction having been granted, the court below dissolved the same, granting complainants an appeal to the supreme court without supersedeas "for the purpose of settling the principles of the case." Before the case was reached in the supreme court the special election was held and the vacancy in the office filled.

Appeal dismissed.

Sullivan & Tally, for appellants.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C. J.

This court cannot entertain an appeal where there is no actual controversy. See Ency. Pl. & Prac. vol. 2, p. 341, § 4; and especially note 2 on page 343, and the authorities therein cited, particularly Chamberlain v. Cleveland, 66 U.S. 419, 1 Black (U. S.), 419; 17 L.Ed. 93; Little v. Bowers, 134 U.S. 547 10 S.Ct. 620, 33 L.Ed. 1016, and Chicago R. R. Co. v. Dey, 76 Iowa 278, 41 N.W. 17, in which last case it is held that, "where the cause on appeal relates to questions involved in rights which have ceased to exist, the appeal will be dismissed." It is also laid down on page 344, in note 1: "The appellate court will not determine a cause involving nothing more than a question of costs"--citing numerous authorities.

Again the object of this injunction was to prevent the holding of the election for sheriff. The injunction was dissolved, and a supersedeas denied, and then, curiously enough, an appeal granted, as alleged, for the purpose of "settling the principles of the cause." The whole cause was "settled" when the election was held, and, the injunction being dissolved and the supersedeas denied, the officers properly proceeded to hold, and did hold, the election. We are in the attitude of being asked, by this appeal to reverse this decree, reinstate the injunction, and to make the injunction perpetual, against the holding of an election which has been already held. An injunction is not granted to prevent the occurrence of a thing which has already occurred. In 16 Ency. of Law (...