Case Name: George Sayles, Respondent, v. The City of Seattle et al., Appellants
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1922-03-03
Citations: 119 Wash. 12
Docket Number: No. 16841
Parties: George Sayles, Respondent, v. The City of Seattle et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 12–13

Head Matter:
[No. 16841.
Department One.
March 3, 1922.]
George Sayles, Respondent, v. The City of Seattle et al., Appellants.
Appeal (102) — Right to Appeal — Cessation op Controversy— Lapse op Time. Where a business license expires pending appeal from a judgment determining the rights of the parties in an action to restrain the city from revoking the license, the question becomes a moot one which the supreme court will not decide nor entertain for the purpose of determining costs.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Smith, J., entered April 22,1921, in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for an injunction, tried to the court.
Affirmed.
Walter F. Meier, Edwin G. Ewing, and Charles T. Bonworth, for appellants.
Guie & Halverstadt and Carroll B. Graves, for respondent.
Reported in 204 Pac. 778.

Opinion:
Tolman, J.
— Respondent, as plaintiff, brought this action to enjoin the city of Seattle and its officers from enforcing an ordinance (No. 41886) enacted by the city council on January 31, 1921, revoking a license theretofore issued to him to maintain and operate a billiard and pool parlor at a designated place within the city, and to enjoin any interference with his conduct of that business under such license. From a decree granting him the relief sought, this appeal is prosecuted.
It clearly appears from the record that the license herein referred to', by its terms, expired not later than January 5, 1922, and therefore, when this case was reached for hearing in this court, the license and all rights thereunder had wholly ceased to exist, and the question at issue had become a moot one only. This court has uniformly held that it will not consider or decide cases when no controversy longer exists, nor entertain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the mere question of costs. Holly-Mason Hardware Co. v. Schnatterly, 111 Wash. 29, 189 Pac. 545; Wilson v. Fraser, 67 Wash. 347, 121 Pac. 829, and cases there cited.
For the reasons given, the judgment appealed from will stand affirmed, without costs to either party.
Parker, O. J., Fullerton, Mitchell, and Bridges, JJ., concur.