Standard Fire Insurance v. Fishback

Washington Supreme Court

Standard Fire Insurance v. Fishback

149 P. 945, 86 Wash. 225, 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1196

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 7, 1915

DocketNo. 12634

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 149 P. 945 (Standard Fire Insurance v. Fishback) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Standard Fire Insurance v. Fishback, 149 P. 945, 86 Wash. 225, 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1196 (Wash. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant seeks in this action to enjoin respondent from revoking its license to do business in this state. The lower court sustained a demurrer to the second amended complaint, and the appellant having elected to stand upon such complaint, a judgment of dismissal was entered. From such judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.

[226]*226The only question involved is the constitutionality and proper construction of § 24 of the insurance code, relating to deposits of securities by foreign insurance companies. (Laws 1911, p. 188, § 24; 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6059-24.) This section was considered in detail by this court in the case of State ex rel. Leach v. Fishback, 79 Wash. 290, 140 Pac. 387. While the appellant makes some contentions which were not then made, we find it unnecessary to consider these contentions for the reason that, since this case was submitted, § 24, supra, has been amended by § 5, ch. 177, Laws of 1915, p. 590. The threatened action of respondent, here sought to be enjoined, was based upon certain provisions of the statute which were eliminated by this amendment. Appellant does not contend that the enforcement of that portion of § 24 which was left unchanged by the amendment will interfere with its rights, and the court will not presume that the respondent will seek to revoke appellant’s license upon grounds which are no' longer in the statute. The only question in controversy has thus become moot.

The rule is well settled in this court that we will not consider cases where nothing but moot or abstract questions are involved. Vollman v. Industrial Workers of the World, 79 Wash. 192, 140 Pac. 337, and cases cited.

Following this practice, the appeal will be dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to bring another action, should defendant attempt to revoke its license upon unauthorized grounds. Neither party will recover costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant seeks in this action to enjoin respondent from revoking its license to do business in this state. The lower court sustained a demurrer to the second amended complaint, and the appellant having elected to stand upon such complaint, a judgment of dismissal was entered. From such judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.

[226]*226The only question involved is the constitutionality and proper construction of § 24 of the insurance code, relating to deposits of securities by foreign insurance companies. (Laws 1911, p. 188, § 24; 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6059-24.) This section was considered in detail by this court in the case of State ex rel. Leach v. Fishback, 79 Wash. 290, 140 Pac. 387. While the appellant makes some contentions which were not then made, we find it unnecessary to consider these contentions for the reason that, since this case was submitted, § 24, supra, has been amended by § 5, ch. 177, Laws of 1915, p. 590. The threatened action of respondent, here sought to be enjoined, was based upon certain provisions of the statute which were eliminated by this amendment. Appellant does not contend that the enforcement of that portion of § 24 which was left unchanged by the amendment will interfere with its rights, and the court will not presume that the respondent will seek to revoke appellant’s license upon grounds which are no' longer in the statute. The only question in controversy has thus become moot.

The rule is well settled in this court that we will not consider cases where nothing but moot or abstract questions are involved. Vollman v. Industrial Workers of the World, 79 Wash. 192, 140 Pac. 337, and cases cited.

Following this practice, the appeal will be dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to bring another action, should defendant attempt to revoke its license upon unauthorized grounds. Neither party will recover costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 P. 945, 86 Wash. 225, 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-fire-insurance-v-fishback-wash-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack