| "{\"id\": \"1684652\", \"name\": \"BARRON v. BELONGY\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Barron v. Belongy\", \"decision_date\": \"1924-12-10\", \"docket_number\": \"Calendar No. 31,557\", \"first_page\": \"201\", \"last_page\": \"203\", \"citations\": \"229 Mich. 201\", \"volume\": \"229\", \"reporter\": \"Michigan Reports\", \"court\": \"Michigan Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Michigan\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T02:31:39.859753+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"McDonald, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred with Moore, J.\", \"parties\": \"BARRON v. BELONGY.\", \"head_matter\": \"BARRON v. BELONGY.\\nCertiorari \\u2014 Moot Questions Will Not be Considered.\\nWhere, on certiorari to review an order of the court below granting a writ of mandamus to compel members of a school board to grant to plaintiffs the use of the auditorium of the schoolhouse on certain dates, under the provisions of Act No. 318, Pub. Acts 1917, it appears that the time when the use of said auditorium was desired has passed, that the case is academic, and that action thereon would be futile, the Supreme Court will decline to decide the questions thus presented. Clark, C. J., and Bird and Sharpe, JJ., dissenting, on the ground that the statute involved should be construed.\\nCertiorari to Wayne; Godd (George P.), J.\\nSubmitted October 7, 1924.\\n(Calendar No. 31,557.)\\nDecided December 10, 1924.\\nMandamus by Daniel D. Barron and others to compel Henry Belongy and others, constituting the school board of school district No. 4, River Rouge, Michigan, to grant the use of the auditorium of said school to plaintiffs on certain dates. From an order granting the writ, defendants bring certiorari.\\nWrit dismissed.\\nLodge & Brown, for appellants.\\nBresnahan & Groefsema (P. /. M. Hally, of counsel), for appellees.\\nCertiorari, 11 C. J. \\u00a7 341.\", \"word_count\": \"552\", \"char_count\": \"3190\", \"text\": \"Moore, J.\\nPlaintiffs made application for the use of the auditorium in the River Rouge school for the evenings of March 17, July 17, and October 17, 1924. The petition was intended to comply with the provisions of Act No. 318, Pub. Acts 1917 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, \\u00a7 5870 [107]). Their application was denied by the school board. A writ of mandamus was issued by the circuit judge, directing the school board to grant the use of the auditorium for those dates. The school board brought the case into this court by writ of certiorari.\\nThe case was argued and submitted in this court October 7, 1924. The last brief on the part of the plaintiffs was filed in this court November 5,1924, and the last brief on the part of the defendants was filed October 16, 1924. A recital of these dates shows that the case at this time is academic.\\nWe have often held that, when a case presents simply abstract questions of law which do not rest on existing facts, and when action by this court would be futile, we will not decide the questions thus presented. Some of the cases are Carlson v. Wyman, 189 Mich. 402; Blickle v. Board of Education, 210 Mich. 196; Tierney v. Union School District, 210 Mich. 424, and the many cases cited therein.\\nWrit is dismissed, without costs to either party.\\nMcDonald, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred with Moore, J.\"}" |