Case Name: Clark Ellis et al. (W. C. Hatcliff et al.), Appellants, v. James Landis and Roy Burke, Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1925-05-09
Citations: 118 Kan. 502
Docket Number: No. 25,913
Parties: Clark Ellis et al. (W. C. Hatcliff et al.), Appellants, v. James Landis and Roy Burke, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 502–502

Head Matter:
No. 25,913.
Clark Ellis et al. (W. C. Hatcliff et al.), Appellants, v. James Landis and Roy Burke, Appellees.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
Appeal and Error — Dismissal—Want of Actual Controversy. An appeal from the refusal of the district court to grant an injunction against the maintenance of a high school under existing conditions is dismissed because the acts sought to be prevented have already been performed.
Appeal from Montgomery district court; Joseph W. Holdren, judge.
Opinion filed May 9, 1925.
Dismissed.
Sullivan Lomax, of Cherryvale, for the appellants.
J. A. Brady, of Cherryvale, and T. F. Morrison, of Chanute, for the appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mason, J.:
This action was brought by the treasurer of a school district and a number of individuals, seeking to enjoin the other two members of the school board from doing acts incidental or necessary to the carrying on of a high school — in effect to enjoin the maintenance of a high school. A demurrer to the plaintiffs' evidence was sustained and they appeal.
The ground upon which the injunction was sought was that no tax had been provided or could legally have been provided sufficient to meet the expense of maintaining such high school for a year; that the maximum amount that could have been made available for all purposes would not have exceeded the cost of keeping up a grade school. The action was brought on April 14, 1924. The judgment appealed from was rendered June 19. No temporary injunction was allowed. Obviously the case has become moot, the acts sought to be prevented having already taken place. The appellants urge that the questions of law argued should be decided for the guidance of the school authorities for the future. There being no actual controversy now before the court, anything said on the subject would not amount to a judicial decision, and we but follow the usual course in such a situation in dismissing the appeal. (Meyn v. Kansas City, 91 Kan. 29, 136 Pac. 898.)
The appeal is dismissed.