Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913

Agee v. Cate

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided April 17, 1913 · Dowdell, Sayre

180 Ala. 522; 61 So. 900; 1913 Ala. LEXIS 383

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Ex Parte McFry (Ala. 1929)
Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. City of Montgomery (Ala. 1915)
Dean Leader and William Durall v. Crescencio Pablo, as the dependent spouse of Catalina Estillado (a/k/a Eva Saenz) (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-17-903862) (Ala. 2024)
State ex rel. City of Prichard v. Jansen (Ala. 1960)
Paoli v. California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
Francis v. Scott (Ala. 1954)
Moss v. Brown (Ala. 1949)
State Ex Rel. Burns v. Phillips (Ala. 1947)
Burke v. Coleman (Mo. 1947)
Coleman v. Mange (Ala. 1939)
Alabama Power Co. v. City of Sheffield (Ala. 1936)
Walker v. Lakewood Estates, Inc. (Ala. 1927)
State Ex Rel. Roche v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
Giglio v. Barrett (Ala. 1922)
McCord v. Lanier (Ala. 1922)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SAYRE, J.

This 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.

Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.