Rawlings v. Claggett, Election Com'rs

• Decision Date: 10 February 1936
• Docket Number: 32127
• Citation: 165 So. 620,174 Miss. 845
• Parties: RAWLINGS et al. v. CLAGGETT et al., ELECTION COM'RS
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

165 So. 620

174 Miss. 845

RAWLINGS et al. v. CLAGGETT et al., ELECTION COM'RS

No. 32127

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 10, 1936

Division B

1. APPEAL AND ERROR.

Appeal presenting only moot questions was dismissed.

2 JUDGMENT.

Dismissal of appeal presenting only moot questions held not res judicata nor prejudicial to rights of parties in other suits.

HON. R E. BENNETT, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Adams county HON. R. E. BENNETT Judge.

Suit between J. T. Rawlings and others, and Ethel Claggett and others. From the decision, the first-named party and others appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Engle & Laub and W. A. Geisenberger, all of Natchez, for appellees, and movants.

Appellants' case is controlled by the case of Sellier et al. v. Lowry et al., 164 So. 767. The fact that the appellants in the Sellier case sought to obtain a writ of prohibition in no wise distinguishes the principles therein laid down, from the principles controlling the instant case.

There is no principle of law better established than that courts will not adjudicate moot questions; that they will only decide real controversies not imaginary ones and that no judgment will be rendered which is unenforceable and therefore useless.

Pafhausen v. State, 94 Miss. 103, 47 So. 897; State ex rel. Knox v. Board of Supervisors, Pearl River County, 115 So. 343; Yates v. Beasley, 133 Miss. 301, 97 So. 676.

If appellants, and particularly Mr. J. T. Rawlings, feel that they have been aggrieved, they are not without remedy, because if as a matter of fact the election was fraudulently or improperly held, then the law gives to them, or any of them, the right to contest said election.

Section 6258, Code of 1930.

Brandon & Brandon, of Natchez, for appellants.

This cause comes on for consideration before this court on appeal in due course, all proceedings having been instituted, maintained, and prosecuted in strict accordance with the provisions of the statute in such matters provided.

This appeal is in that respect distinguishable from the case of Sellier et al. v. Lowry et al., 164 So. 767, relied upon by the appellees, and to the same extent distinguishable from the case of McDaniel v. Hurt, 88. Miss. 769, 41 So. 381.

It is not every change in circumstances which might be said to render the case a moot one which will require a dismissal of the appeal. Whenever the judgment, if left unreversed, will preclude the party against whom it is rendered, as to a fact vital to his rights, though the judgment if affirmed may not be directly enforceable by reason of lapse of time or change of circumstances, it cannot be said that merely a moot question is involved.

2 R. C. L., Appeal and Error, sec. 145, page 170; Kaufman v Mastin, 66 S.E. 92, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 855; State ex rel. Rylands v. Pinkerman, 22 L.R.A. 653; Livesley v. Johnson, 65 L.R.A. 783; United Real Estate, etc., Co. v. Barnes, 157 Cal. 515, 108 P. 306; Lebus v. Stansifer, 154 Ky. 444, 157 S.W. 727; Bokel, etc., Co. v. Costello, 22 App. (D. C.) 81; In re Gering, 88 Neb. 192, 129 N.W. 430; Ex parte Steele, 162 F. 694, 701; Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310; Matter of Fairchild, 151 N.Y. 359, 45 N.E. 943; Boise City Irrigation Co. v. Clark, 131 F. 435, 66 C. C. A. 399; State v. Sutsman, 139 N.W. 83; State v. Southern Telephone Co., 65 Fla. 67, 61 So. 199; Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118; 276 Pa. 246, 120 A. 139; Maley...