TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hood v. McCarthy

Hood v. McCarthy, 91 N.E. 501 (Ind. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 8, 1910
Docket
No. 21,645
Judges
Montgomery
Citations
91 N.E. 501174 Ind. 1281910 Ind. LEXIS 84
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal.— Dismissal. — Moot Questions.— Intoxicating Liquors.— Where an appeal is taken from an order granting a license to retail intoxicating liquors, and the year has expired for which the license was granted, the appeal presents only a moot question, and will be dismissed.
Summary
From Cass Circuit Court; John S. Lairy, Judge. Application by Daniel F. McCarthy, against which Deo S. Hood and others remonstrate. From a judgment for the applicant, remonstrants appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Montgomery

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Montgomery, J.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Miami, on September 3, 1907, overruled appellants’ remonstrance, and granted appellee a license to retail intoxicating liquors for one year. An appeal was taken to the Miami Circuit Court, and, on application, the venue was changed to the Cass Circuit Court, in which a demurrer was sustained to appellants’ amended remonstrance. Appellants declined to amend, and on December 19, 1907, final judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. It is alleged on appeal that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s demurrer to appellants’ remonstrance.

It is manifest that the time for which the license was granted to appellee has long since expired, and the subject-matter of the litigation has ceased to exist. The question submitted is no longer a matter of actual controversy, but merely an abstract or mooted one. This court will not determine such questions, and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed. Brown v. Dicus (1909), 172 Ind. 51 ; Hale v. Berg (1908), 41 Ind. App. 48 .

■yhe appeal is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11913: 11914: 11920: 11935: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gibson v. State99 N.E. 424 (Ind. 1912)
  2. Meyer v. Farmers State Bank103 N.E. 97 (Ind. 1913)
  3. Leavell v. Doney104 N.E. 856 (Ind. 1914)
  4. Gary Amusement Co. v. Hirsth198 N.E. 298 (Ind. 1935)
  5. Ballew v. Arnett129 N.E. 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920)

Most recent

  1. Gary Amusement Co. v. Hirsth198 N.E. 298 (Ind. 1935)
  2. Ballew v. Arnett129 N.E. 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920)
  3. Leavell v. Doney104 N.E. 856 (Ind. 1914)
  4. Meyer v. Farmers State Bank103 N.E. 97 (Ind. 1913)
  5. Gibson v. State99 N.E. 424 (Ind. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Brown v. Dicus, 87 N.E. 716 (Ind. 1909) 12
Hale v. Berg, 83 N.E. 357 (Ind. Ct. App. 1908) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list