Case Name: Hood et al. v. McCarthy
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1910-04-08
Citations: 174 Ind. 128
Docket Number: No. 21,645
Parties: Hood et al. v. McCarthy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 174
Pages: 128–128

Head Matter:
Hood et al. v. McCarthy.
[No. 21,645.
Filed April 8, 1910.]
Appeal.— Dismissal. — Moot Questions.— Intoxicating Liquors.— Where an appeal is taken from an order granting a license to retail intoxicating liquors, and the year has expired for which the license was granted, the appeal presents only a moot question, and will be dismissed.
From Cass Circuit Court; John S. Lairy, Judge.
Application by Daniel F. McCarthy, against which Deo S. Hood and others remonstrate. From a judgment for the applicant, remonstrants appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Cox & Andrews, for appellants.
Reasoner & Ward, for appellee.

Opinion:
Montgomery, J.
The Board of Commissioners of the County of Miami, on September 3, 1907, overruled appellants' remonstrance, and granted appellee a license to retail intoxicating liquors for one year. An appeal was taken to the Miami Circuit Court, and, on application, the venue was changed to the Cass Circuit Court, in which a demurrer was sustained to appellants' amended remonstrance. Appellants declined to amend, and on December 19, 1907, final judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. It is alleged on appeal that the court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellants' remonstrance.
It is manifest that the time for which the license was granted to appellee has long since expired, and the subject-matter of the litigation has ceased to exist. The question submitted is no longer a matter of actual controversy, but merely an abstract or mooted one. This court will not determine such questions, and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed. Brown v. Dicus (1909), 172 Ind. 51; Hale v. Berg (1908), 41 Ind. App. 48.
yhe appeal is dismissed.