Case ID: nc_170/html/0666-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. M. KISTLER v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    (Filed 2 October, 1914.)
    Appeal and Error — “Moot Case” — Intoxicating’ Liquors — Carriers of Goods.
    The purpose of this action being to determine the question whether the plaintiff, the consignee of a keg of beer, transported by the defendant carrier from beyond the State, is entitled to receive it in North Carolina; and it further appearing from the briefs filed that both the parties to the suit are interested on the same side of the controversy, and that the State and Federal statutes require interpretation: Held, the case is practically a “moot case,” which, under the circumstances, the Court will not decide.
    
      [The following per curiam, opinion in' A. M. Kistler v. Southern Railway was rendered by the Supreme Court 29 October, 1913. The motion of defendant to reinstate the case for argument was allowed 18 November, 1913, and the case set for hearing at February Term, 1914, and accordingly argued 5 February, 1914. The case went over under aclvisari to Fall Term, 1914, and á per curiam order dismissing motion to reconsider was filed 7 October, 1914, Walker and Allen, JJ., dissenting. By inadvertence the opinion was not published in the 168 N. C.]
    Appeal by defendant from Cline, J., at June Term, 1913, of Bubke.
    Action to recover one barrel of beer consigned to tbe plaintiff, and beard upon an agreed statement of facts. There was judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff, and tbe defendant excepted and appealed.
    
      W. A. Self for plaintiff.
    
    
      S. J. Ervin for defendant.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

Tbis is a proceeding to obtain a determination of tbe question whether tbe defendant can legally transport a barrel of beer from a point beyond tbe State to Morganton, N. 0.; and there deliver it to tbe plaintiff. Tbe plaintiff files a brief contending that chapter 24, sec. 3, Laws 1907, forbidding such act, and tbe act of Congress ratified 3 March, 1913, cannot deprive him of tbe right to receive such consignment. Tbe defendant, in bis brief, avers that be is ready to obey tbe law if be knows what it is, and files a brief in accordance with tbe contention of tbe plaintiff. It is apparent that both parties are interested on tbe same side, and that tbis is really a proceeding to ask tbe advice or opinion of tbe Court on practically a “moot case,” when there is no doubt as to tbe facts. There was no stay of execution, and tbe beer was doubtle.ss delivered and long since consumed.

In Parker v. Bank, 152 N. C., 255, tbis Court held that tbe object of tbe suit was evidently to procure a construction of section 4, cb. 150, Laws 1909, and that it was instituted solely for tbe purpose of obtaining tbe opinion of tbe Court, and dismissed tbe action. That case referred to Blake v. Askew, 76 N. C., 327, in which it was attempted in a similar way to obtain tbe opinion of tbe Court as to tbe validity of special-tax bonds, and where tbe same action was taken. In tbis case it would be necessary to construe tbe above statutes of tbe State and of tbe United States, and we are not willing to pass upon a question of such importance without tbe benefit of a bona fide controversy and full argument by opposing counsel. Tbe Court ba.s refused to entertain a controversy submitted to obtain tbe opinion of tbe Court upon tbe administration of tbe public school system (Board of Education v. Kenan, 112 N. C., 567), or to advise a sheriff as to tbe application of moneys (Milliken v. Fox, 84 N. C., 107; Bates v. Lilly, 65 N. C., 232).

We must, therefore, enter an order,

Appeal dismissed.