Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

180 Ala. 522

Agee v. Cate

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 17, 1913

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1913-04-17

Heard before Hon. John C. Pugh. Application by T. M. Cate to compel W. G. Agee and others, members of the Excise Commission of Jefferson county, to issue petitioner a certificate, authorizing the issue of liquor license to him for the year 1912. From a judgment awarding the writ, respondents appeal. Counsel discuss the appeal on its merits with citations of authority, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.

Relies on Comer v. Bankhead · State ex rel. Case v. Lyons · County of Montgomery v. Montgomery Traction Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1913-04-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 1960

14 state decisions

50191319201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAYRE, J.

¶1This case originated in an application to the circuit court of Jefferson county for a writ of mandamus to compel the excise commission of that *523county to issue a certificate to the probate judge which would entitle petitioner to a renewal of his license as a wholesale liquor dealer for the year 1912. Issues of fact were formed, tried by a jury, and decided in favor of the petitioner,, appellee. On appeal, the case was submitted in this court on November 26, 1912. Nothing was said in respect to the nature of the questions involved, and we did not become acquainted with them until Ave took up the record in the regular order of its submission, during the following March. The case had then become moot. It is not the practice of courts to decide cases after the time when a judgment may be made effective. Nor is it customary to decide questions of importance, after their decision has become useless, merely to ascertain who is liable for the costs. To this doctrine this court is fully committed.Comer v. Bankhead, 70 Ala. 136; State ex rel. Case v. Lyons, 143 Ala. 649, 39 South. 214; County of Montgomery v. Montgomery Traction Company, 140 Ala. 458, 37 South. 208. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

¶2Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.
/180/ala/522 · .json · Public domain