Mesa Mail Publishing Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County

• Decision Date: 11 July 1924
• Docket Number: Civil 2122
• Parties: THE MESA MAIL PUBLISHING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA; and J. W. BRADSHAW, GUY VERNON and C. S. STEWARD as Supervisors of Said Maricopa County, State of Arizona; and TULLY W. BENSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

227 P. 572

26 Ariz. 521

THE MESA MAIL PUBLISHING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA; and J. W. BRADSHAW, GUY VERNON and C. S. STEWARD as Supervisors of Said Maricopa County, State of Arizona; and TULLY W. BENSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, Appellees

Civil No. 2122

Supreme Court of Arizona

July 11, 1924

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Joseph S. Jenckes, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Messrs Dougherty & Dougherty, for Appellant.

Mr Gene S. Cunningham, County Attorney, and Mr. C. M. Gandy Assistant County Attorney, for Appellees.

OPINION

CHAMBERS, Superior Judge.

The plaintiff appellant is the publisher of the Mesa "Daily Tribune," a daily newspaper published in Maricopa county, Arizona. During the year 1922, the Mesa "Daily Tribune" was the official newspaper of Maricopa county made such by a contract entered into on December 31, 1921. The controversy in this case arises over the construction of paragraphs 4840 and 4841 of the Civil Code of 1913. Paragraph 4840 provides that the board of supervisors of each county of the state shall make estimates of the different amounts required to meet the public expense for the ensuing year, to be raised by taxation. Paragraph 4841 provides for the publication of the estimate in the official newspaper of the county.

In the year 1922 the board of supervisors directed the publication of the estimates in the Mesa "Daily Tribune" for two consecutive weeks, once in each week, beginning July 31, 1922. The appellant claims that, by virtue of the fact that it publishes a daily newspaper, the requirements of paragraph 4659 of the Civil Code of 1913 make it imperative that the board of supervisors publish said estimates for at least six times each week beginning July 31, 1922, or for twelve times instead of two, as the supervisors directed.

The appellant brought an action for a writ of mandamus against the board of supervisors and the individual members thereof, praying for a writ commanding them to direct, order and cause to be published the said estimates in the Mesa "Daily Tribune" beginning July 31, 1922, for twelve consecutive issues.

The trial court issued an alternative writ, to which the defendants answered by motion to quash, demurrer, and to the merits of the action. The case came on for hearing on July 31, 1922. The court quashed the alternative writ of mandamus and dismissed the petition. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals.

The relief asked for in appellant's complaint could not be granted unless granted on or before the thirty-first day of July, 1922. The term of office of two members, a majority of the board of supervisors, expired on the thirty-first day of December, 1922. It would be ridiculous for this court to now enter an order directing the board of supervisors of Maricopa county to perform a duty that could be performed only in July and August, 1922. The issues now presented make this a moot case. A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights. 27 Cyc. 911.

While this court, so far as has been called to our attention, has made no previous expression upon this subject, the law in other jurisdictions is well settled that the court will not decide moot questions or abstract propositions. We cite but a few of the many cases that sustain this rule. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. (U.S) 251, 12 L.Ed. 1067 (see,...