State ex rel. Kern v. Owens

Indiana Supreme Court

State ex rel. Kern v. Owens

91 N.E. 562, 174 Ind. 142, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 88

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 21, 1910

DocketNo. 21,511

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 N.E. 562 (State ex rel. Kern v. Owens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Kern v. Owens, 91 N.E. 562, 174 Ind. 142, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 88 (Ind. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Lawrence, on August 3, 1908, made an order granting relator a license to retail intoxicating liquors for the term of one year. No license was called for under this order until May 27, 1909, at which time the relator paid to the county treasurer a license fee of $100, and produced to appellee his receipt therefor, with a proper and sufficient bond, and $5 as a fee for the issuance of the license, and demanded of appellee, as county auditor, that such license be [143]*143issued. Appellee refused to issue the license, and this action was brought to compel, by writ of mandamus, the issuance of a license. Appellee’s demurrer to the alternative writ was sustained, and, relator declining to amend or plead further, final judgment was rendered in favor of appellee.

It is charged that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s demurrer to the alternative writ of mandamus.

1. The only relief sought or demanded in this proceeding is the issuance of a license under the grant of August 3, 1908. A license issued pursuant to that order could run for one year only from that date. Vannoy v. State (1878), 64 Ind. 447; State v. Wilcox (1879), 66 Ind. 557.

2. It is apparent that no peremptory writ compelling the issuance of a license, by virtue of the order upon which the relator relies, could now be had. The question, whether, upon the facts stated, he was entitled to compel the issuance of such license at the time he made his demand therefor, has become, so far as this controversy is concerned, a moot question, which this court will not decide. Brown v. Dicus (1909), 172 Ind. 51; Brown v. Moore (1909), 172 Ind. 717; Hood v. McCarthy (1910), ante, 128; State, ex rel., v. Noftzger (1910), ante, 140; Hale v. Berg (1908), 41 Ind. App. 48; State, ex rel., v. Boyd (1909), 172 Ind. 196.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Montgomery, J.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Lawrence, on August 3, 1908, made an order granting relator a license to retail intoxicating liquors for the term of one year. No license was called for under this order until May 27, 1909, at which time the relator paid to the county treasurer a license fee of $100, and produced to appellee his receipt therefor, with a proper and sufficient bond, and $5 as a fee for the issuance of the license, and demanded of appellee, as county auditor, that such license be [143]*143issued. Appellee refused to issue the license, and this action was brought to compel, by writ of mandamus, the issuance of a license. Appellee’s demurrer to the alternative writ was sustained, and, relator declining to amend or plead further, final judgment was rendered in favor of appellee.

It is charged that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s demurrer to the alternative writ of mandamus.

1. The only relief sought or demanded in this proceeding is the issuance of a license under the grant of August 3, 1908. A license issued pursuant to that order could run for one year only from that date. Vannoy v. State (1878), 64 Ind. 447; State v. Wilcox (1879), 66 Ind. 557.

2. It is apparent that no peremptory writ compelling the issuance of a license, by virtue of the order upon which the relator relies, could now be had. The question, whether, upon the facts stated, he was entitled to compel the issuance of such license at the time he made his demand therefor, has become, so far as this controversy is concerned, a moot question, which this court will not decide. Brown v. Dicus (1909), 172 Ind. 51; Brown v. Moore (1909), 172 Ind. 717; Hood v. McCarthy (1910), ante, 128; State, ex rel., v. Noftzger (1910), ante, 140; Hale v. Berg (1908), 41 Ind. App. 48; State, ex rel., v. Boyd (1909), 172 Ind. 196.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E. 562, 174 Ind. 142, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-kern-v-owens-ind-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack