Bachman v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bachman v. Thompson

98 P. 426, 22 Okla. 621, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 59

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 16, 1908

DocketNo. 2146, Okla. T.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 P. 426 (Bachman v. Thompson) 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

Bachman v. Thompson, 98 P. 426, 22 Okla. 621, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 59 (Okla. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

WilliaMS, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). Since the filing of the petition in error in this case the territory of Ojk-lahorna and Indian Territorjr have been admitted into the Union as a- state. Under the terms of the Constitution (Bunn’s Ed. § 9), a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors is forbidden. A decision of this case on its merits by this 'court would not avail anything to either of the parties hereto. The right of defendant in error to sell intoxicating liquors under such license has been expressly repealed. 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.” Harman v. Burt, 20 Okla. 509, 94 Pac. 528; Parker et al. v. Territory ex rel, Bostic, 20 Okla. 851, 94 Pac. 175; Freeman v. Board of Medical Examiners, 20 Okla. 610, 95 Pac. 229; Braun v. The Stillwater Advance Printing & Publishing Co. ante, p. 620, 98 Pac. 426.

This cause 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, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). Since the filing of the petition in error in this case the territory of Ojk-lahorna and Indian Territorjr have been admitted into the Union as a- state. Under the terms of the Constitution (Bunn’s Ed. § 9), a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors is forbidden. A decision of this case on its merits by this 'court would not avail anything to either of the parties hereto. The right of defendant in error to sell intoxicating liquors under such license has been expressly repealed. 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.” Harman v. Burt, 20 Okla. 509, 94 Pac. 528; Parker et al. v. Territory ex rel, Bostic, 20 Okla. 851, 94 Pac. 175; Freeman v. Board of Medical Examiners, 20 Okla. 610, 95 Pac. 229; Braun v. The Stillwater Advance Printing & Publishing Co. ante, p. 620, 98 Pac. 426.

This cause is dismissed without prejudice.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 P. 426, 22 Okla. 621, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bachman-v-thompson-okla-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack