Case ID: pa-super_71/html/0238-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Winston et al. v. Ladner et al., Appellants.
    
      Appeals — Moot questions — Preliminary injunctions — Dismissal of appeal.
    
    1. It is not the province of courts to .give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions and to enter judgments or decrees to which effect cannot be given.
    2. An appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction, which has expired by limitation, will be dismissed.
    Argued Dec. 9, 1918.
    February 28, 1919:
    Appeal, No. 291, Oct. T., 1918, by defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1918, No. 4993, granting a preliminary injunction in the case of John C. Winston et al. v. Albert H. Ladner, Jr., George C. Pierie, William A. Carr and William Walsh, Board of Registration Commissioners of the City of Philadelphia.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Bill in equity to restrain defendants from striking any further names from registration lists. Before AudenRIED, P. J.
    The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
    The court granted a preliminary injunction, which expired by limitation on May 21,1918.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      Grover' O. Ladner, for appellants.
    
      Thos. Raeburn White, for appellees.
   Per Curiam,

The decree from which this appeal is taken, so far as it restrained the action of the Registration Commission, expired by limitation on May 21, 1918. The injunction is no longer in force, and the question involved is merely academic. It follows, that the reversal of the decree would have no effect whatever upon the rights of any person. It is not the province of an appellate court to consider moot questions or abstract propositions, and to enter judgments or decrees to which effect cannot be given. The question has been very carefully considered in a number of cases without any difference of opinion as to the duty of the court under facts as presented on this appeal. See Com. v. Cairns, 48 Pa. Superior Ct. 265; Faust v. Cairns, 242 Pa. 15, and other cases cited therein.

The appeal is dismissed, the costs to be paid by the appellant.