Case Name: Kirk v. North Little Rock Special School District
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-10-03
Citations: 174 Ark. 943
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kirk v. North Little Rock Special School District.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 174
Pages: 943–945

Head Matter:
Kirk v. North Little Rock Special School District.
Opinion delivered October 3, 1927.
Melboiorne M. Martin, for appellant.
Tom Digby and Carmichael & Hendricks, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). Counsel for appellant claims that he only desires the court to pass upon the question of whether or not the defendant special school district could issue bonds in payment of the current expenses of the schools of the district. To pass upon the question insisted upon by appellant could not possibly result in any benefit to him. It is fairly infer-able from his own complaint that the bonds had been issued and sold to the Bankers' Trust Company, which is not made a party to the action, before the present suit was brought. The affidavit of the secretary of the board filed in this court shows that the bonds had been sold and the proceeds spent. There is no denial of this fact. The purchaser or holder of the bonds not having been made a party to the action, his rights could not in any wise be affected by any decision we might make. Hence a decision of the question presented by the appeal, even if favorable to the contention of the appellant, could not result in any practical benefit to him. The court could not make any order relative to the bonds which would affect the holder of them. The sum realized from a sale of the bonds has been expended by the district. It could only declare what it believed the law to be upon the issue attempted to be raised by appellant. It has never been the policy of this court with respect to litigated cases to decide cases AVhich, by reason of intervening facts, seemed to be of no practical application to the controversy between the parties. It is the duty of the courts to decide actual controversies by a judgment or decree which can be carried into effect, but not to give opinions upon controversies or declare principles of law which cannot be executed or which cannot have any practical effect in settling- the rights of the litigants under the judgment or decree rendered. Mabry v. Kettering, 92 Ark. 81, 122 S. W. 115; Kays v. Boyd, 145 Ark. 303, 224 S. W. 617; Blakely v. Newton, 157 Ark. 351, 248 S. W. 907; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 16 S. Ct. 132, 40 L. ed. 293; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147, 24 S. Ct. 611, 48 L. ed. 913; Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24, 27 S. Ct. 233, 51 L. ed. 351; and So. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Int. Commerce Com., 219 U. S. 498, 31 S. Ct. 279, 55 L. ed. 310.
We do not pass upon the issue attempted to be raised by appellant in this appeal, but, following the principles of law announced in the decisions above cited, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice to the rights of any one. It is so ordered.