State v. Vogel.

Decision Date18 February 1935
Docket NumberNo. 4057.,4057.
Citation39 N.M. 122,41 P.2d 1107
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court


Appeal from District Court, McKinley County; Owen, Judge.

Clarence F. Vogel was removed as Town Trustee on charges preferred by the State, and he appeals. The State moves to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice.

Appeal from judgment which ordered town trustee removed from office after he had been found guilty of interfering with prosecution of arrested persons was dismissed without prejudice as involving moot question, where trustee's term of office expired shortly after removal, since no effective relief could be awarded.

Mechem & Hannett, of Albuquerque, for appellant.

E. K. Neumann, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SADLER, Chief Justice.

The state as appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the questions involved therein have become moot. The proceeding was a statutory one before the district court of McKinley county to remove defendant (appellant) as a member of the board of trustees of the town of Gallup. The defendant, having been found guilty by the jury trying the charges preferred against him, was removed from office under a judgment of removal entered in said cause on the 23d day of March, 1934. His term of office expired very shortly after entry of the judgment of removal. The contention is that since defendant's tenure in the office from which he was removed has expired, all questions involved on the appeal subsequently taken have become moot.

It is necessary to consider the nature of the accusation against defendant to pass upon the merits of the motion. The case was tried upon the state's first amended presentment, defendant's answer, and the state's reply thereto. Briefly, the presentment charged that defendant as a member of the board of trustees of the town of Gallup intervened with the chief of police of said town to halt the prosecution and secure the discharge of certain female inmates of the Angelus Hotel in Gallup after their arrest upon a charge of prostitution.

The defendant made a general denial of each material allegation in the presentment, and entered a plea of not guilty at the trial. The jury returned a verdict finding him guilty, and pursuant to verdict judgment of removal was duly entered against him.

The defendant, as appellant in this court, has proceeded with due dispatch in perfecting his appeal from said judgment and has filed his brief herein, setting out the points relied upon for reversal. The points so relied upon go to the merits of the judgment rendered against him.

It is quite obvious that even should be ultimately prevail no effective relief can he awarded him, his term of office having expired. The defendant, conceding that such is the case, urges upon us, however, that “if there is some substantial right of the appellant which will become prejudiced by allowing the decision below to stand, the court will not dismiss the case.” He cites the cases of New Mexico Motor Corporation v. Bliss, 27 N. M. 304, 201 P. 105, and Massengill v. City of Clovis, 33 N. M. 394, 268 P. 786, and argues that the judgment amounts to an impeachment of his good name and reputation calculated seriously to prejudice his future activities in life, if allowed to stand.

[1] It is too well established to admit of controversy that a review will not be granted where the questions involved, either by time or circumstance, have become moot. Our decisions reflect many applications of the principle. Carman v. Board of Com'rs of McKinley County, 32 N. M. 517, 259 P. 821; State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • City of Albuquerque v. Campos
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • August 16, 1974
    ...134 (1961); Reeder v. Bowman, 64 N.M. 7, 322 P.2d 339 (1958); In Re Hickok's Will, 61 N.M. 204, 297 P.2d 866 (1956); State v. Vogel, 39 N.M. 122, 41 P.2d 1107 (1935); Buss v. Kemp Lumber Co., 23 N.M. 567, 170 P. 54 (1918). It is true that in those cases we held this Court would not pass upo......
  • Thaxton, In re
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1968
    ...rel. Agee v. Hassler, 196 Tenn. 158, 264 S.W.2d 799 (1954); Coleman v. Mange, 238 Ala. 141, 189 So. 749 (1939). Compare State v. Vogel, 39 N.M. 122, 41 P.2d 1107 (1935); State ex rel. Mirabal v. Greer, 37 N.M. 292, 21 P.2d 819 (1933); Southall v. Billings, 215 Tenn. 244, 385 S.W.2d 97 (1964......
  • State Ex Rel. Bard v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Grant County, 3984.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1935

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT