State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter

Supreme Court of Iowa

State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter

11 N.W. 715, 58 Iowa 19

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedApril 4, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 11 N.W. 715 (State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter, 11 N.W. 715, 58 Iowa 19 (iowa 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Day, J.

1. QUO WARANTO: dismissal of. The action of the court was right. The relator asks that he be adjudged and decreed to be the lawful sub-director, and that the defendant be ousted and excluded from the office. The term of office having expired, the court could not grant this relief. No fees attach to the office of subdirector, and hence neither party had' anything to gain or lose by further litigation. Courts are not organized for the purpose of determining mere abstractions. The court ought not to be required to spend its time in the accumulation of a bill of costs, lor no other purpose than that .of determining which party should pay them. As no vital question remained for determination, the further prosecution of the case would have been vexatious and unjust.

Affirmed.

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

Day, J.

1. QUO WARANTO: dismissal of. The action of the court was right. The relator asks that he be adjudged and decreed to be the lawful sub-director, and that the defendant be ousted and excluded from the office. The term of office having expired, the court could not grant this relief. No fees attach to the office of subdirector, and hence neither party had' anything to gain or lose by further litigation. Courts are not organized for the purpose of determining mere abstractions. The court ought not to be required to spend its time in the accumulation of a bill of costs, lor no other purpose than that .of determining which party should pay them. As no vital question remained for determination, the further prosecution of the case would have been vexatious and unjust.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.W. 715, 58 Iowa 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mcnulty-v-porter-iowa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack