Peck v. Murphy & Bolanz

Court of Appeals of Texas

Peck v. Murphy & Bolanz

175 S.W. 1078, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 460

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 17, 1915

DocketNo. 7408.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.W. 1078 (Peck v. Murphy & Bolanz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peck v. Murphy & Bolanz, 175 S.W. 1078, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 460 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

RAINEY, C. J.

Herman Kruegel, appellant, filed a motion in the Fourty-Fourth district court of Dallas county seeking a writ of mandamus against H. I-I. Williams, district clerk of said county, commanding him to issue an execution by virtue of a judgment rendered by said court in favor of I-I. D. Peck against Murphy & Bolanz, J. P. Murphy and Charles F. Bolanz, in cause No. 14225, styled H. D. Peck v. Murphy & Bolanz, which judgment has been assigned to Herman Kruegel by H. D. Peck. On hearing the cause the district court refused to issue the writ of mandamus, and Kruegel appeals.

Since judgment overruling said motion by the district court and the perfecting of this appeal, the respondent, I-I. H. Williams, has ceased to be clerk of said court, his term of office having expired at the last general election in November, 1914, and his successor, Matt L. Cobb, has qualified and been install- *1079 éd as district clerk of said county. Williams being no longer clerk of the court, it is no longer Ms duty to perform tbe duties of said office, therefore a mandamus should not be issued commanding him to issue the execution, as the law requires the clerk to perform that duty, and an execution now issued by Williams would be void. Then it would be useless for us to determine the question of whether or not the district court should have granted the motion for mandamus. It is well settled by decisions of this state that appellate courts will not decide questions where the matter in controversy has ceased to exist or the decision would be useless and inoperative. Watkins v. Huff, 94 Tex. 631, 64 S. W. 682; Ansley v. State of Texas, 175 S. W. 470, decided by this court April 3, 1915, not yet officially published; Old River Rice Irr. Co. v. Stubbs, 133 S. W. 494; Gordon v. State, 47 Tex. 208; McWhorter v. Northcut, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S. W. 720.

The cause is dismissed.

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

RAINEY, C. J.

Herman Kruegel, appellant, filed a motion in the Fourty-Fourth district court of Dallas county seeking a writ of mandamus against H. I-I. Williams, district clerk of said county, commanding him to issue an execution by virtue of a judgment rendered by said court in favor of I-I. D. Peck against Murphy & Bolanz, J. P. Murphy and Charles F. Bolanz, in cause No. 14225, styled H. D. Peck v. Murphy & Bolanz, which judgment has been assigned to Herman Kruegel by H. D. Peck. On hearing the cause the district court refused to issue the writ of mandamus, and Kruegel appeals.

Since judgment overruling said motion by the district court and the perfecting of this appeal, the respondent, I-I. H. Williams, has ceased to be clerk of said court, his term of office having expired at the last general election in November, 1914, and his successor, Matt L. Cobb, has qualified and been install- *1079 éd as district clerk of said county. Williams being no longer clerk of the court, it is no longer Ms duty to perform tbe duties of said office, therefore a mandamus should not be issued commanding him to issue the execution, as the law requires the clerk to perform that duty, and an execution now issued by Williams would be void. Then it would be useless for us to determine the question of whether or not the district court should have granted the motion for mandamus. It is well settled by decisions of this state that appellate courts will not decide questions where the matter in controversy has ceased to exist or the decision would be useless and inoperative. Watkins v. Huff, 94 Tex. 631, 64 S. W. 682; Ansley v. State of Texas, 175 S. W. 470, decided by this court April 3, 1915, not yet officially published; Old River Rice Irr. Co. v. Stubbs, 133 S. W. 494; Gordon v. State, 47 Tex. 208; McWhorter v. Northcut, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S. W. 720.

The cause is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.W. 1078, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-murphy-bolanz-texapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack