TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Howe v. Doyle

Howe v. Doyle, 154 N.W. 62 (Mich. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 28, 1915
Docket
No. 174
Judges
Late, Took
Citations
154 N.W. 62187 Mich. 6551915 Mich. LEXIS 636
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 9 2 descriptions by later courts
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — “Blue-Sky Law” — Moot Questions — Dismissal. Where Act No. 143, Pub. Acts 1913, known as the “Blue-Sky Law,” was repealed pending an appeal by complainants of injunction proceedings attacking the validity of the law, and there are no proceedings pending before the Michigan Securities Commission in which complainants are interested which are continued by the repealing act, but the questions raised on appeal are mere moot questions, this court will, on its own motion, dismiss the appeal.
Summary
Appeal from Ingham; Collingwood, J. Bill by Burton Howe and another against Edward H. Doyle, John W. Haarer, and Grant Fellows, constituting the Michigan Securities Commission, for injunction restraining defendants from .enforcing the provisions of Act No. 148, Pub. Acts.1913. From a decree for defendants, complainants 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

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

Per Curiam.

This case is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court in chancery, which dismisses the bill of complaint of the complainants, filed again”st the defendants herein, members of the Michigan Securities Commission created by Act- No. 143, Pub. Acts 1913, the so-called “Blue Sky Law.” The bill attacks the constitutionality of this law on several grounds, and prays for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing its terms.

While this case has been pending in this court on this appeal, the legislature at its session of 1915 enacted a new law, creating a similar commission, and by its terms repealed Act No. 143, Pub. Acts 1913, and all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the new legislation. The new act also provided:

“All proceedings pending before said Michigan Securities Commission created by said Act one hundred forty-three of the Public Acts of nineteen hundred and thirteen shall be continued by the commission created by this act; all actions, civil and criminal, pending under said Act one hundred forty-three of the Public Acts of nineteen hundred thirteen shall be continued and completed thereunder.” (Act No. 46, Pub. Acts 1915).

It does not appear from this record that there are any proceedings pending before the commission; nor *657 are there any actions, civil or criminal, pending in which complainants are interested. The act whose constitutionality is assailed by these proceedings having been repealed, if we should consider the questions here raised, we would be giving our consideration to mere moot questions, and this we must decline to do.

We will therefore dismiss the case on our own motion, without costs to either party.

The late Justice McAlvay took no part in this decision.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1916: 31920: 31940: 11967: 12010: 119162026peak 1916 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schouwink v. Ferguson157 N.W. 726 (Mich. 1916)
  2. ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY488 Mich. 69 (2010)
  3. De Hoop v. Peninsular Life Insurance159 N.W. 500 (Mich. 1916)
  4. People v. Watters158 N.W. 865 (Mich. 1916)
  5. Anway v. Grand Rapids Railway Co.179 N.W. 350 (Mich. 1920)
  6. People v. Mallory147 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. 1967)

Most recent

  1. ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY488 Mich. 69 (2010)
  2. People v. Mallory147 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. 1967)
  3. McCarthy v. Wayne Circuit Judge293 N.W. 683 (Mich. 1940)
  4. Gildemeister v. Lindsay180 N.W. 633 (Mich. 1920)
  5. Anway v. Grand Rapids Railway Co.179 N.W. 350 (Mich. 1920)
  6. Tierney v. Union School District177 N.W. 955 (Mich. 1920)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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