Supreme Court of Iowa, 1882

State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter

Supreme Court of Iowa · Decided April 4, 1882 · Day

58 Iowa 19; 11 N.W. 715

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Muehe (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
Cummings v. Eastman (Me. 1927)
Osterhous ex rel. Vander Veen v. Van Duren (Mich. 1912)
In re Kaeppler (N.D. 1898)
State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell (Iowa 1897)
State ex rel. Coiner v. Wickersham (Wash. 1896)
Manning v. Heath (Iowa 1928)
Karolussen v. Christianson (Iowa 1919)
Independent School District v. Pennington (Iowa 1917)
Hatz v. Board of Supervisors (Iowa 1916)
Minwegen v. Coughlin (Ill. App. Ct. 1913)
Kaufman v. Mastin (W. Va. 1909)
Ververka v. Fullmers (Neb. 1908)
Potts v. Tuttle (Iowa 1890)
Cutcomp v. Utt (Iowa 1882)

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

Day, J.

1. QUO WARANTO: dismissal of. The action of the court was right. The relator asks that he be adjudged and decreed to be the lawful sub-director, and that the defendant be ousted and excluded from the office. The term of office having expired, the court could not grant this relief. No fees attach to the office of subdirector, and hence neither party had' anything to gain or lose by further litigation. Courts are not organized for the purpose of determining mere abstractions. The court ought not to be required to spend its time in the accumulation of a bill of costs, lor no other purpose than that .of determining which party should pay them. As no vital question remained for determination, the further prosecution of the case would have been vexatious and unjust.

Affirmed.

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