TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Boyle v. Kansas State Board of Health

The State of Kansas, ex rel. L. C. Boyle, as Attorney-general, etc. v. The Kansas State Board of Health

State ex rel. Boyle v. Kan. State Bd. of Health, 51 P. 1101 (Kan. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 11, 1897
Docket
No. 10,129
Citations
51 P. 110190 Kan. 181913 Kan. LEXIS 149
Disposition
Dismissed.
Headnotes
HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER. Injunction — Subject Matter of Action No Longer Exists — Case Dismissed. Where the officers against whom proceedings for injunction were brought have passed out of office and the subject matter of the action no longer exists the case will be dismissed.
Summary
Appeal from Shawnee district court.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam:

On December 31,1894, the state, on the relation of the county attorney, recovered a judgment against The Kansas State Board of Health and the state *19 officers who then constituted the executive council, permanently enjoining them from using or paying out what was designated as the cholera fund. This proceeding was brought to obtain a reversal of that judgment, and we are asked to determine the rights and duties of the parties with respect to that fund. It appears, however, that the fund is no longer extant. It was appropriated by the legislature of 1893, and even under the constitution it would not be available after July 1, 1895. To prevent the money from being drawn from the treasury whatever the judgment of the courts might be, the legislature of 1895 passed an act repealing the provision appropriating the cholera fund, and providing that it should be covered into the general fund in the state treasury. (Laws 1895, ch. 110.) As the officers against whom the proceeding was brought have passed out of office and the subject mátter of the action no longer exists, no substantial question remains: for our determination, and the court does not feel justified in giving its attention to mere moot questions. As was said in Hurd v. Beck, 57 Kan. 911 , 88 Kan. 11 , 45 Pac. 92 :

“The time of this court ought not to be occupied by the consideration of abstract questions of law, however important and interesting they may be.” (p. 12,)

The proceeding will, therefore, be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1899: 11913: 11915: 11916: 11920: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hurd v. Beck, 45 P. 92 (Kan. 1896) 14

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