Martin v. State of Alabama Ex Rel. G. v. Gamble

Supreme Court of Alabama

Martin v. State of Alabama Ex Rel. G. v. Gamble

171 So. 2d 848, 277 Ala. 456, 1965 Ala. LEXIS 539

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 21, 1965

Docket4 Div. 203

StatusPublished

This text of 171 So. 2d 848 (Martin v. State of Alabama Ex Rel. G. v. Gamble) 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

Martin v. State of Alabama Ex Rel. G. v. Gamble, 171 So. 2d 848, 277 Ala. 456, 1965 Ala. LEXIS 539 (Ala. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an action in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding to determine whether appellant was usurping, intruding into, unlawfully holding or exercising the office of Director of the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Florala, Alabama.

It appears from the record that the office of the Director of the Water Works [457]*457and Sewer Board expired and terminated on September 13, 1964, which time was prior to the date this appeal became at issue.

The action was brought under Title 7, § 1136, Code of Alabama 1940, authorizing such a proceeding:

“When any person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office, civil or military, or any franchise, or any profession requiring a license, or certificate or other legal authorization within this state, or any office in a corporation created by authority of this state.”

It is manifest that the question raised by the proceeding below has now become moot because of the expiration of the office upon which this controversy is centered. While both parties have argued strenuously that this question has not become moot by the expiration of the office, we are of the contrary opinion. The following authority is found in 44 Am.Jur., Quo Warranto, § 130, p. 182:

“The appeal will ordinarily be dismissed where for some reason the case has become moot,¹ as through expiration of the terms of office of the parties to the proceeding,² although it has been held that such expiration of office will not justify dismissal of the appeal where the case should be held to impose a fine against the usurper.³

The case at bar falls within the announced rule above cited as there is no public reason for a decision and no fine or other penalty imposed on the would-be intruder into the public office.

Moreover, it is clear from the statute (§ 1136 supra) that presently no person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises the office of Director of the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Florala.

Assuming arguendo that there was some error in the record, which would work a reversal of this cause, and the case were remanded with directions for a new trial, what would be the result and which of the parties to this appeal would be legally entitled to the office in contest? Since the term of office has expired, appellee Gamble is not entitled to hold the office, nor would appellant Martin be entitled to hold the in-; stant term of office. It would therefore appear that any ruling by this Court would be entirely futile and would be coram non judice.

It affirmatively appears from the record that the term of office in controversy has expired. The question presented below as a consequence has become moot. We are constrained' to the conclusion that the alp-peal is to be dismissed and costs taxed against the appellant. So ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an action in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding to determine whether appellant was usurping, intruding into, unlawfully holding or exercising the office of Director of the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Florala, Alabama.

It appears from the record that the office of the Director of the Water Works [457]*457and Sewer Board expired and terminated on September 13, 1964, which time was prior to the date this appeal became at issue.

The action was brought under Title 7, § 1136, Code of Alabama 1940, authorizing such a proceeding:

“When any person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office, civil or military, or any franchise, or any profession requiring a license, or certificate or other legal authorization within this state, or any office in a corporation created by authority of this state.”

It is manifest that the question raised by the proceeding below has now become moot because of the expiration of the office upon which this controversy is centered. While both parties have argued strenuously that this question has not become moot by the expiration of the office, we are of the contrary opinion. The following authority is found in 44 Am.Jur., Quo Warranto, § 130, p. 182:

“The appeal will ordinarily be dismissed where for some reason the case has become moot,¹ as through expiration of the terms of office of the parties to the proceeding,² although it has been held that such expiration of office will not justify dismissal of the appeal where the case should be held to impose a fine against the usurper.³

The case at bar falls within the announced rule above cited as there is no public reason for a decision and no fine or other penalty imposed on the would-be intruder into the public office.

Moreover, it is clear from the statute (§ 1136 supra) that presently no person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises the office of Director of the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Florala.

Assuming arguendo that there was some error in the record, which would work a reversal of this cause, and the case were remanded with directions for a new trial, what would be the result and which of the parties to this appeal would be legally entitled to the office in contest? Since the term of office has expired, appellee Gamble is not entitled to hold the office, nor would appellant Martin be entitled to hold the in-; stant term of office. It would therefore appear that any ruling by this Court would be entirely futile and would be coram non judice.

It affirmatively appears from the record that the term of office in controversy has expired. The question presented below as a consequence has become moot. We are constrained' to the conclusion that the alp-peal is to be dismissed and costs taxed against the appellant. So ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 2d 848, 277 Ala. 456, 1965 Ala. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-of-alabama-ex-rel-g-v-gamble-ala-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack