Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • 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 Fed. 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 Fed. 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 v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 146 So. 837.
Judges
  • Ethridge, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • 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 Fed. 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 Fed. 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 v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 146 So. 837.
Judges
  • Ethridge, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

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

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.

Ethridge, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The appeal in this case is dismissed. It presents only moot questions.

But the dismissal of this appeal will not prejudice the rights of the parties in other suits, and is not to be taken as res adjudicata.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

RAWLINGS ET AL. v. CLAGGETT ET AL
(Feb 10, 1936)