Agee v. Cate

61 So. 900, 180 Ala. 522, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 383
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 17, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 61 So. 900 (Agee v. Cate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Agee v. Cate, 61 So. 900, 180 Ala. 522, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 383 (Ala. 1913).

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

This case originated in an application to the circuit court of Jefferson county for a writ of mandamus to compel the excise commission of that [523]*523county to issue a certificate to the probate judge which would entitle petitioner to a renewal of his license as a wholesale liquor dealer for the year 1912. Issues of fact were formed, tried by a jury, and decided in favor of the petitioner,, appellee. On appeal, the case was submitted in this court on November 26, 1912. Nothing was said in respect to the nature of the questions involved, and we did not become acquainted with them until Ave took up the record in the regular order of its submission, during the following March. The case had then become moot. It is not the practice of courts to decide cases after the time when a judgment may be made effective. Nor is it customary to decide questions of importance, after their decision has become useless, merely to ascertain who is liable for the costs. To this doctrine this court is fully committed.—Comer v. Bankhead, 70 Ala. 136; State ex rel. Case v. Lyons, 143 Ala. 649, 39 South. 214; County of Montgomery v. Montgomery Traction Company, 140 Ala. 458, 37 South. 208. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. City of Prichard v. Jansen
122 So. 2d 736 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)
Paoli v. California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Corp.
296 P.2d 31 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Francis v. Scott
72 So. 2d 93 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Moss v. Brown
44 So. 2d 561 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
State Ex Rel. Burns v. Phillips
33 So. 2d 239 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947)
Burke v. Coleman
202 S.W.2d 809 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1947)
Coleman v. Mange
189 So. 749 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
Alabama Power Co. v. City of Sheffield
166 So. 797 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Ex Parte McFry
122 So. 641 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Walker v. Lakewood Estates, Inc.
112 So. 460 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
State Ex Rel. Roche v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County
98 So. 654 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
McCord v. Lanier
93 So. 546 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Giglio v. Barrett
92 So. 668 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. City of Montgomery
69 So. 428 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 So. 900, 180 Ala. 522, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agee-v-cate-ala-1913.