State v. Lambert.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1902 |
| Citation | 52 W.Va. 248 |
| Parties | State v. Lambert. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
A court will express an opinion on questions of law when it becomes necessary to do so in determining controverted rights of persons or of property, but it cannot decide moot questions or abstract propositions. (p. 250).
If, pending a writ of error to a judgment of a circuit court, awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding the clerk of a municipal corporation to place the name of the plaintiff, as a candidate for office, on the official ballot to be voted for in an election to be held in such corporation, the election has been held and the alleged right involved has ceased to exist, the writ of error will be dismissed. (p. 251).
Error to Circuit Court, Berkeley County.
Application by the State, on the relation of I). C. Westenhaver, for writ of mandamus to A. E. Lambert, clerk of the town of Martinsburg. Writ granted, and defendant brings error.
Dismissed.
W. B. Lindsey, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Woods, for defendant in error.
PoefeNbar, ger, Judge:
On the 13th day of May, 1901, the judge of the circuit court of Berkeley County, upon the petition of D. C. Westenhaver, awarded an alternative writ of mandamus directed to A. F. Lambert, clerk of the town of Martinsburg, West Virginia, commanding him to place the name of said petitioner on the official election ballot to be used in the election to be held in said town on the fourth Monday in May, 1901, as a candidate for member of the council of said town, or to appear in answer to the writ on the 16th day of May, and show cause why he should not do so.
On the return day, the defendant appeared, moved to quash the writ, and, the court having overruled the motion, filed his return in writing, denying, on the ground of insufficiency of the certificate of nomination and failure to file the same within the time prescribed by law, that the petitioner was entitled to have his name placed on the ballot. Upon a submission to the court and an agreed statement of facts, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, awarding a peremptory writ, to which judgment Lambert sued out a, writ of error.
It is apparent that lapse of time; has eliminated the substance of the controversy, leaving only abstract questions of law for determination. More than eighteen months have passed since the fourth Monday in May, 1901, and any decision now rendered, either affirming or reversing the judgment, would be wholly barren of practical or substantial results. It could neither enforce the alleged right of the petitioner to have his name printed on a ballot which, has long since been prepared, used and presumably destroyed, having fully performed its function, nor give to the defendant any relief against the plaintiff. It is the duty of courts to decide the rights of persons and of property when the parties interested cannot adjust their controversy concerning such right between themselves. Beyond this, there is no duty resting upon the court, nor any power or authority vested in them. It has long been settled law that, if one of the litigating parties, by purchase or otherwise, extinguish the claim of the opposite party, or if the parties, by collusion, endeavor to obtain from a court a. decision upon a moot question, having no substantial right in actual controversy between them for determination, the court will refuse to take further cognizance of the matter and dismiss the proceeding, if pending, or decline to take jurisdiction if the status of the parties and object of the proceeding appear, when the aid of the court is invoked. California v. R. R. Co., 149 U. S. 308; Singer Co. v. Wright, 111 U. S. 693; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; East Penn, R. R. Co. v. Tel. Co., 125 H. S. 695; Addington v. Adams, 125 IT. S. 696; Rail iff v. Potion, 37 W. Va 197; Lord v. V'easy, 8 How 255; Am., etc, Co. v. Hept, 8 Wall. 333^ Williams v. Hagood, 8 Otto, 72; Hlnbrager v. Mahony, 6 L. E. A. 50; 0'Sullivan v. People, 20 L. R. A. 148; State v. Tudor, 5 Am. Dec. 162; Kidd v. Morrison, Phil. Eq., 31; Clem eland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black 119; 2 Ency. pp. 160 and 841, et seq. and notes.
While the manner "of the elimination of the substantial right which formed the basis of the controversy in this proceeding is wot within the terms of the foregoing proposition, it is dearly within the principle stated and the analogy of the cases cited. In one of them, State v. Tudor, 8 Day (Conn.) 329, 5 Am. Dec. 162, the status of the case was very similar to that of this one, and it was held to be clearly within the rule. The syllabus of that case reads as follows: "In an information in the nature of a quo warranto against an officer of a corporation, charging him with having usurped the franchises of the office, a new trial will not be granted, for a misdirection, when it appears that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial