State Ex Rel. DeAtley v. Alexander

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Ex Rel. DeAtley v. Alexander

1920 OK 1, 186 P. 1080, 77 Okla. 87, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 190

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 6, 1920

Docket11067

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1920 OK 1 (State Ex Rel. DeAtley v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. DeAtley v. Alexander, 1920 OK 1, 186 P. 1080, 77 Okla. 87, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 190 (Okla. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

RAINEY, J.

The plaintiff in error herein filed his action in the district court of Canadian county against Ferol Alexander, corporation clerk of the city of El Reno, Oklahoma, praying for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the said Ferol Alexander to issue proper warrant for the payment to plaintiff in error for alleged services rendered the 'city of El Reno as policeman. The district court issued the alternative writ,, but upon return and hearing entered an order vacating the alternative writ and refused to issue the peremptory writ. It is to review such action -that plaintiff in error has 'appealed to this court.

Subsequent to the filing of thé appeal herein, defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that she is no longer corporation clerk of the city of El Reno, nor connected with the office in any way, and alleges that on the 1st day of August, 1919, one Ethel Dowell was appointed to the office and assumed the duties of city or corporation clerk, by virtue of which the questions involved in the appeal have become moot, abstract, and hypothetical. In response to the motion to dismiss plaintiff in error has filed a motion to substitute the present city or corporation clerk of said city of El Reno as defendant in error.

■ Upon the authority of Crigler, County Clerk, v. Nichols, 51 Okla. 707, 152 Pac. 343, the motion to substitute must be denied, and the motion to dismiss sustained. In that case it was held, on the authority of Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487, 31 Sup. Ct. 43, 54 L. Ed. 1121, that an action such as the one in the case at bar is against the party personally whom it is sought to compel to issue the warrant, and that on the termination of such party’s official authority his successor cannot be substituted.

It appearing that the defendant in error, Ferol Alexander, has retired from office, and that no actual relief could be granted in this case other than to determine liability for costs, the questions presented by the appeal have become moot.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

OWEN. C. J., and PITCHFORD, JOHNSON. McNEILL, and HIGGINS, JJ., concur.

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

RAINEY, J.

The plaintiff in error herein filed his action in the district court of Canadian county against Ferol Alexander, corporation clerk of the city of El Reno, Oklahoma, praying for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the said Ferol Alexander to issue proper warrant for the payment to plaintiff in error for alleged services rendered the 'city of El Reno as policeman. The district court issued the alternative writ,, but upon return and hearing entered an order vacating the alternative writ and refused to issue the peremptory writ. It is to review such action -that plaintiff in error has 'appealed to this court.

Subsequent to the filing of thé appeal herein, defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that she is no longer corporation clerk of the city of El Reno, nor connected with the office in any way, and alleges that on the 1st day of August, 1919, one Ethel Dowell was appointed to the office and assumed the duties of city or corporation clerk, by virtue of which the questions involved in the appeal have become moot, abstract, and hypothetical. In response to the motion to dismiss plaintiff in error has filed a motion to substitute the present city or corporation clerk of said city of El Reno as defendant in error.

■ Upon the authority of Crigler, County Clerk, v. Nichols, 51 Okla. 707, 152 Pac. 343, the motion to substitute must be denied, and the motion to dismiss sustained. In that case it was held, on the authority of Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487, 31 Sup. Ct. 43, 54 L. Ed. 1121, that an action such as the one in the case at bar is against the party personally whom it is sought to compel to issue the warrant, and that on the termination of such party’s official authority his successor cannot be substituted.

It appearing that the defendant in error, Ferol Alexander, has retired from office, and that no actual relief could be granted in this case other than to determine liability for costs, the questions presented by the appeal have become moot.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

OWEN. C. J., and PITCHFORD, JOHNSON. McNEILL, and HIGGINS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK 1, 186 P. 1080, 77 Okla. 87, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-deatley-v-alexander-okla-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack