State ex rel. County Attorney of Reno County v. Smith
| Decision Date | 03 November 1934 |
| Docket Number | 32056. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. COUNTY ATTORNEY OF RENO COUNTY, v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where alternative writ has been duly issued in original mandamus proceeding, but, before cause is submitted, time has passed for doing that which writ would require to be done, cause is moot and should be dismissed.
Where mandamus action was brought to compel county commissioners to let contract for printing of ballots for primary election of August at statutory rate instead of reduced rate and alternative writ was issued, case held moot where not submitted until following October session of Supreme Court (Rev. St. 1923, 25--604).
In an original mandamus proceeding where an alternative writ has been duly issued, but before the cause is submitted the time has passed within which it would be possible to do the particular thing which the writ asked would require to be done, the cause is moot and should be dismissed because the writ, if allowed, would be unavailing and ineffective.
Original mandamus proceeding by the State of Kansas, on the relation of the County Attorney of Reno County, against Harry Smith and others, as members of the Board of County Commissioners of Reno County.
Dismissed.
Roland Boynton, Atty. Gen., and Max Wyman, of Hutchinson, for plaintiff.
John Fontron, of Hutchinson, for defendants.
This is a mandamus action brought in this court by the state of Kansas on relation of the county attorney of Reno county against the county commissioners of that county, to compel them to let the contract for the printing of the ballots to be used at the primary election to be held on August 7, 1934 at the rate specified in R. S. 25--604 instead of a reduced rate; the petition alleging that the defendants had accepted a bid at 50 percent. of the legal rate and were about to enter into a contract for the printing thereof at such reduced rate.
The petition was filed on June 5, 1934, and on the same day an alternative writ was issued signed by the Chief Justice of this court; also, on that same day a motion to quash the alternative writ was filed by the defendants. On July 2 1934, the attorneys for both plaintiff and defendants filed their printed briefs, calling mainly for a construction of the statute above noted and particularly whether the word "shall" therein is mandatory or merely directory and to be construed as "may." The July term of this court commenced on the day the briefs were filed, and the next regular session of this court convened on October 1 1934, and three days later, in response to an oral motion the case was advanced to the October session and was submitted on the briefs without oral argument.
We are confronted with the fact that the case appears to be moot. No contract can now be let by the defendants, regardless of price, for the printing of primary ballots to be used August 7, 1934. The briefs were filed in time, but unless the case had been submitted at that very time and the issues determined and the opinion handed down at once, it would have been after the primary election was over--to say nothing of a reasonable time necessary to do the work of printing. Any order we might make in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Smith
... ... from District Court, Sedgwick County, Division No. 3; Clair ... E. Robb, Judge ... in interest; that the petition did not state a cause of ... action; and that the injunction ... Kan. 489, 111 P.2d 1113, and State ex rel. Wyman v ... Smith, 140 Kan. 461, 36 P.2d 956 ... attorney general or the county attorney. Preferring to ... ...
-
Hornaman v. Vaughan
...of process a judgment is a useless thing. Under such circumstances courts simply withhold their judgment. See State, ex rel. Wyman v. Smith, 140 Kan. 461, 36 P.2d 956. The rule has been applied not only in cases pertaining to private controversies but in actions involving the public interes......
-
Dickey Oil Co. v. Wakefield
... ... and regulations of the State Corporation Commission, examined ... and held: ... from District Court,- Sedgwick County, Division No. 1, Ross ... McCormick, Judge ... Kan. 176, 222 P. 74; State ex rel. v. Smith, 140 ... Kan. 461, 463, 36 P.2d 956 ... ...
-
Row v. Artz, 37595
...of process a judgment is a useless thing. Under such circumstances courts simply withhold their judgment. See State, ex rel. Wyman v. Smith, 140 Kan. 461, 36 P.2d 956. The rule has been applied not only in cases pertaining to private controversies but in actions involving the public interes......