Case ID: neb_86/html/0572-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Faaycett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albert Brown, appellant, v. Daniel Buckley, appellee.
    Filed April 9, 1910.
    No. 15,965.
    Intoxicating Liquors: Appeal: Dismissal. “The supreme court may on its own motion dismiss remonstrator’s appeal from a district court’s order sustaining a saloon-keeper’s license, where the record shows that the term for which the license was issued has expired, and that during its existence appellant made no motion to advance the case for determination.” Heesoh v. Snyder, 85 Neb. 778.
    Appeal from the district court for Custer county: Bruno 0. Hostetler, Judge.
    
      Dismissed.
    
    
      J. B. Dunn and N. T. Oadd, for appellant.
    
      W. D. Oldham and R. E. Brega, contra.
    
   Faaycett, J.

Daniel Buckley, appellee, applied to the board of trustees of the village of Oconto for a license to sell intoxicating liquors* during the municipal year beginning in May, 1908. The village board granted the license. Demonstrator appealed to the district court for Custer county, 'which court on May 13, 1908', confirmed the action of the village board, and dismissed remonstrator’s action. Remonstrator appeals. The transcript on appeal was filed in this court November 11,-1908. No motion to advance the case was ever filed in this court. It therefore appears that the period for which the license was issued has long since expired and that remonstrator’s appeal now presents nothing but moot questions. Following the rule announced in Heesch v. Snyder, 85 Neb. 778, and in harmony with the authorities there cited, remonstrator’s appeal is

Dismissed.