Levy v. Kosmo

Supreme Court of Virginia March 17, 1921

Levy v. Kosmo, 129 Va. 446 (Va. 1921)

106 S.E. 228; 1921 Va. LEXIS 108

Sims

Opinion of the Court

Sims, J.,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the following opinion of the court:

[1] As appears from the statement above, the respondent executed the leases for the year 1920, the préference of privilege of obtaining which was sought by the respective petitions of the plaintiffs in both of the cases before us, which constituted the sole subject of the orders of the court below under review; and that, hence, there is no longer any actual controversy between the parties to these cases over the matters in issue involved in the appeals. The *452cases, therefore, present merely a moot question for our decision so far as the parties to these cases are concerned. Hamar v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 636, 637-8, 59 S. E. 400; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 16 Sup. Ct. 132, 40 L. Ed. 293; Garrett v. Snead, 121 Va. 390; 93 S. E. 628; note in 24 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. p. 247. Further,

[2] It would seem from the facts shown in the above statement that, prior to the time the leases aforesaid were made to the plaintiffs in the cases before us, a lease of the same property was made by respondent to two other parties, namely, one Dick Papazian and one N. E. Darhanian, and we are asked to construe a certain provision in that' lease. But these lessees were not parties in the court below to either of the cases before us, and no issue was made by the pleadings in either case in the court below involving that subject. It is therefore plain that any decision we might make on these appeals with respect to the proper construction of the provision of the lease just mentioned could not be carried into effect against the lessees last mentioned. Such a decision would be merely an opinion upon a moot question not in issue in the cases before us.

The appeals in both cases must, therefore, be dismissed.

Dismissed.

Reference

Full Case Name: E. C. Levy, Director of Public Welfare of the City of Richmond v. Aristea Kosmo and E. C. Levy, Director of Public Welfare of the City of Richmond v. Bill Mangigian, Dick Yeretzian and Arthur Yeretzian
Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Appeal and Error — Moot Questions — -Mandamus.—Plaintiffs petitioned the court below for writs of mandamus requiring respondent, director of public welfare of the city of Kichmond, to assess the rental for the year 1920 of two stores in a Kichmond market, as provided for by the Kichmond City Code of 1910, and to comply with the provisions of such code. The orders of the lower court granted the prayers of plaintiffs’ petitions and ordered respondent to assess the rental value for the stores and to give the relators preference for the renewal of their leases, and respondent complied with the requirements of the order in every particular. Held: On appeal, that there was no longer any actual controversy between the parties, and the cases presented merely a moot question for the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals. 2. Appeal and Error — Moot Questions — Questions Involving Persons not Parties. — On appeal from an order in mandamus proceedings directing respondent to give relators preference for the renewal of their leases of market stalls, where the issue had become moot by the execution of the leases by respondent, it appeared that prior to the time of the leases to plaintiffs, a lease of the same property had been made by respondent to two other parties, and the Supreme Court of Appeals was asked to construe a provision in the latter lease. Held: The lessees not being parties in the court below, and no issue having been made by the pleadings involving that subject, any decision as to the proper construction of the lease could not be carried into effect against such lessees. Such a decision would be merely an opinion upon a moot question not in issue.