State ex rel. Stirrett v. Rogers

South Dakota Supreme Court

State ex rel. Stirrett v. Rogers

164 N.W. 73, 39 S.D. 315, 1917 S.D. LEXIS 143

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 30, 1917

DocketFile No. 4138

StatusPublished

This text of 164 N.W. 73 (State ex rel. Stirrett v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota 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. Stirrett v. Rogers, 164 N.W. 73, 39 S.D. 315, 1917 S.D. LEXIS 143 (S.D. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

POLLEY, J.

This- action was brought by the state’s attorney of Lawrence county to enjoin the sale and distribution of intoxicating liquors by the defendants as officers of the Deadwood Business Club. It is alleged in the complaint and admitted' in the answer that said club is an unincorporated association, maintaining clubrooms for the accommodation of its members and their guests, and that, among other paraphernalia for the entertainment of the members and their guests is a bar where intoxicating liquors are dispensed to such members and their said guests. It is' alleged in the complaint to have been done without license and in violation of law. It is alleged in the answer that said liquor was purchased in bulk by the- club and owned by the members thereof, share and share alike, and was delivered to said members when called for by the steward of the club, who received in exchange therefor coupons previously sold to said members. A demurrer to said answer was sustained by the court, and from the order .sustaining the same defendant appeals.

Since the appeal was perfected, the Legislature of this state enacted a law (chapter 281, Laws of 1917) which not only makes it unlawful, but makes it a crime, to receive, keep, or dispense intoxicating liquors in the manner set out in defendants’ answer, or at all. The result of said law is to render a reversal of the [317]*317order appealed from in this case wholly unavailing to the defendants, except to determine who is- entitled to the costs on this appeal. It is. not the policy of this court to determine purely moot questions, or to determine appeals for the sole .purpose of ascertaining who is entitled to tax costs.

The order appealed from, therefore, is affirmed; but, as the case is not disposed of upon its -merits, no costs will be taxed in this court.

WHITING, J., taking no part in the decision.

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

POLLEY, J.

This- action was brought by the state’s attorney of Lawrence county to enjoin the sale and distribution of intoxicating liquors by the defendants as officers of the Deadwood Business Club. It is alleged in the complaint and admitted' in the answer that said club is an unincorporated association, maintaining clubrooms for the accommodation of its members and their guests, and that, among other paraphernalia for the entertainment of the members and their guests is a bar where intoxicating liquors are dispensed to such members and their said guests. It is' alleged in the complaint to have been done without license and in violation of law. It is alleged in the answer that said liquor was purchased in bulk by the- club and owned by the members thereof, share and share alike, and was delivered to said members when called for by the steward of the club, who received in exchange therefor coupons previously sold to said members. A demurrer to said answer was sustained by the court, and from the order .sustaining the same defendant appeals.

Since the appeal was perfected, the Legislature of this state enacted a law (chapter 281, Laws of 1917) which not only makes it unlawful, but makes it a crime, to receive, keep, or dispense intoxicating liquors in the manner set out in defendants’ answer, or at all. The result of said law is to render a reversal of the [317]*317order appealed from in this case wholly unavailing to the defendants, except to determine who is- entitled to the costs on this appeal. It is. not the policy of this court to determine purely moot questions, or to determine appeals for the sole .purpose of ascertaining who is entitled to tax costs.

The order appealed from, therefore, is affirmed; but, as the case is not disposed of upon its -merits, no costs will be taxed in this court.

WHITING, J., taking no part in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.W. 73, 39 S.D. 315, 1917 S.D. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-stirrett-v-rogers-sd-1917.