Hood v. McCarthy

Indiana Supreme Court

Hood v. McCarthy

91 N.E. 501, 174 Ind. 128, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 84

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1910

DocketNo. 21,645

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 91 N.E. 501 (Hood v. McCarthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hood v. McCarthy, 91 N.E. 501, 174 Ind. 128, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 84 (Ind. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Miami, on September 3, 1907, overruled appellants’ remonstrance, and granted appellee a license to retail intoxicating liquors for one year. An appeal was taken to the Miami Circuit Court, and, on application, the venue was changed to the Cass Circuit Court, in which a demurrer was sustained to appellants’ amended remonstrance. Appellants declined to amend, and on December 19, 1907, final judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. It is alleged on appeal that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s demurrer to appellants’ remonstrance.

It is manifest that the time for which the license was granted to appellee has long since expired, and the subject-matter of the litigation has ceased to exist. The question submitted is no longer a matter of actual controversy, but merely an abstract or mooted one. This court will not determine such questions, and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed. Brown v. Dicus (1909), 172 Ind. 51; Hale v. Berg (1908), 41 Ind. App. 48.

■yhe appeal is dismissed.

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

Montgomery, J.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Miami, on September 3, 1907, overruled appellants’ remonstrance, and granted appellee a license to retail intoxicating liquors for one year. An appeal was taken to the Miami Circuit Court, and, on application, the venue was changed to the Cass Circuit Court, in which a demurrer was sustained to appellants’ amended remonstrance. Appellants declined to amend, and on December 19, 1907, final judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. It is alleged on appeal that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s demurrer to appellants’ remonstrance.

It is manifest that the time for which the license was granted to appellee has long since expired, and the subject-matter of the litigation has ceased to exist. The question submitted is no longer a matter of actual controversy, but merely an abstract or mooted one. This court will not determine such questions, and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed. Brown v. Dicus (1909), 172 Ind. 51; Hale v. Berg (1908), 41 Ind. App. 48.

■yhe appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E. 501, 174 Ind. 128, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-mccarthy-ind-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack