Albright v. Erickson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Albright v. Erickson

1909 OK 79, 102 P. 112, 23 Okla. 544, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 387

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 12, 1909

DocketNo. 2197, Okla. T.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1909 OK 79 (Albright v. Erickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albright v. Erickson, 1909 OK 79, 102 P. 112, 23 Okla. 544, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 387 (Okla. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Williams, J.

(after stating the facts as above)-. Since the appeal was perfected to the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma, said territory has been admitted as a part of the state of Oklahoma, and under the prohibition article of the Constitution (Bunn’s Ed. § 499; Snyder’s Ed. p. 394) a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors is forbidden. Consequently nothing could be availed by a decision of this ease on its merits. It has several times been held by this court that it will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow. Parker et al. v. Territory ex rel. Bostic, 20 Okla. 851, 94 Pac. 175; Harmon v. Burt, 20 Okla. 509, 94 Pac. 528; Freeman v. Board of Medical Examiners, 20 Okla. 610, 95 Pac. 229; Burkhalter v. Smith, 20 Okla. 625, 95 Pac. 241; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Territory, 21 Okla. 329, 97 Pac. 265; Conly v. Overholzer et al. 22 Okla. 623, 98 Pac. 331; Braun v. Stillwater Advance Ptg. & Pub. Co., 22 Okla. 620, 98 Pac. 426; Bachman et al. v. Thompson, 22 Okla. 621, 98 Pac. 426; Powell et al. v. Territory ex rel. Hayes, ante, p. 406, 100 Pac. 514; Hodges et al. v. Shafer, ante, p. 404, 100 Pac. 537.

This case is dismissed without prejudice.

All the Justices concur.

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

Williams, J.

(after stating the facts as above)-. Since the appeal was perfected to the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma, said territory has been admitted as a part of the state of Oklahoma, and under the prohibition article of the Constitution (Bunn’s Ed. § 499; Snyder’s Ed. p. 394) a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors is forbidden. Consequently nothing could be availed by a decision of this ease on its merits. It has several times been held by this court that it will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow. Parker et al. v. Territory ex rel. Bostic, 20 Okla. 851, 94 Pac. 175; Harmon v. Burt, 20 Okla. 509, 94 Pac. 528; Freeman v. Board of Medical Examiners, 20 Okla. 610, 95 Pac. 229; Burkhalter v. Smith, 20 Okla. 625, 95 Pac. 241; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Territory, 21 Okla. 329, 97 Pac. 265; Conly v. Overholzer et al. 22 Okla. 623, 98 Pac. 331; Braun v. Stillwater Advance Ptg. & Pub. Co., 22 Okla. 620, 98 Pac. 426; Bachman et al. v. Thompson, 22 Okla. 621, 98 Pac. 426; Powell et al. v. Territory ex rel. Hayes, ante, p. 406, 100 Pac. 514; Hodges et al. v. Shafer, ante, p. 404, 100 Pac. 537.

This case is dismissed without prejudice.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1909 OK 79, 102 P. 112, 23 Okla. 544, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albright-v-erickson-okla-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack