State ex rel. Boyle v. Kansas State Board of Health

51 P. 1101, 90 Kan. 18, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 149
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided December 11, 1897·No. No. 10,129·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

On December 31,1894, the state, on the relation of the county attorney, recovered a judgment against The Kansas State Board of Health and the state [19] officers who then constituted the executive council, permanently enjoining them from using or paying out what was designated as the cholera fund. This proceeding was brought to obtain a reversal of that judgment, and we are asked to determine the rights and duties of the parties with respect to that fund. It appears, however, that the fund is no longer extant. It was appropriated by the legislature of 1893, and even under the constitution it would not be available after July 1, 1895. To prevent the money from being drawn from the treasury whatever the judgment of the courts might be, the legislature of 1895 passed an act repealing the provision appropriating the cholera fund, and providing that it should be covered into the general fund in the state treasury. (Laws 1895, ch. 110.) As the officers against whom the proceeding was brought have passed out of office and the subject mátter of the action no longer exists, no substantial question remains: for our determination, and the court does not feel justified in giving its attention to mere moot questions. As was said in Hurd v. Beck, 57 Kan. 911, 88 Kan. 11, 45 Pac. 92:

“The time of this court ought not to be occupied by the consideration of abstract questions of law, however important and interesting they may be.” (p. 12,)

The proceeding will, therefore, be dismissed.

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

State ex rel. Boyle v. Kansas State Board of Health, 51 P. 1101, 90 Kan. 18, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 149 (kan 1897).

51 P. 1101 (State ex rel. Boyle v. Kansas State Board of Health) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hinckley v. County of San Diego
194 P. 77 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
W. W. Kimball Co. v. Board of County Commissioners
99 Kan. 302 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1916)
Payne Shoe Co. v. Dawson
146 P. 996 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
Anderson v. Board of County Commissioners
132 P. 996 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
State ex rel. Godard v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
90 Kan. 20 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1899)