Case Name: The State of Delaware, on the relation of Carlen P. Traub, Carlen P. Traub as next friend of Carlen J. Traub and Elizabeth K. Traub, David M. Salter and David M. Salter as next friend of Marie Salter, Joseph Grady and Joseph Grady as next friend of Edward Grady, Plaintiff below, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. Fletcher Brown, Edwin C. Huber, Warner W. Price, Norris N. Wright, James Beebe and Ernest A. Simon, being the members of and constituting the State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, Defendants below, Defendants in Error
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1938-02-15
Citations: 39 Del. 187
Docket Number: No. 1
Parties: The State of Delaware, on the relation of Carlen P. Traub, Carlen P. Traub as next friend of Carlen J. Traub and Elizabeth K. Traub, David M. Salter and David M. Salter as next friend of Marie Salter, Joseph Grady and Joseph Grady as next friend of Edward Grady, Plaintiff below, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. Fletcher Brown, Edwin C. Huber, Warner W. Price, Norris N. Wright, James Beebe and Ernest A. Simon, being the members of and constituting the State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, Defendants below, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 187–189

Head Matter:
The State of Delaware, on the relation of Carlen P. Traub, Carlen P. Traub as next friend of Carlen J. Traub and Elizabeth K. Traub, David M. Salter and David M. Salter as next friend of Marie Salter, Joseph Grady and Joseph Grady as next friend of Edward Grady, Plaintiff below, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. Fletcher Brown, Edwin C. Huber, Warner W. Price, Norris N. Wright, James Beebe and Ernest A. Simon, being the members of and constituting the State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, Defendants below, Defendants in Error.
(February 15, 1938.)
Wolcott, Chancellor, Harrington, Rodney and Speakman, J. J., sitting.
C. Stewart Lynch for Plaintiff below, Plaintiff in Error.
P. Warren Green, Attorney-General, and Clair J. Killoran, Deputy Attorney-General, for Defendants below, Defendants in Error.
Supreme Court,
No. 1,
June Term, 1934.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The section of the statute in question was applicable only during a specified period of time which had lapsed when the writ of error came on for a hearing. This being so, the question raised by the exceptions has become moot. It is well settled that Courts are not required to spend time considering controversies which injure no one and which raise nothing but abstract questions for adjudication, unless a matter of great public interest is involved, or unless some other sufficient reason appears.
The appellants contend that the determination of the constitutionality of the section in question is a matter of great importance, because any effort made in the future to obtain similar legislation would likely be defeated by reason of the opinion of the Court below. This is not a sufficient reason to warrant us in departing from the general rule.
The writ of error must be dismissed.