Opinion ID: 1908625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application for Mandamus

Text: As heretofore shown, the controversy concerns the peanut acreage allotment to the Sorrells farm for the year 1954. Although the motion to dismiss the appeal did not raise the point, this court at the time the case was argued and submitted here raised the question of mootness, since the appeal was not taken until February of 1955 and submission here was several months later. The appellants, since submission, have filed a reply brief which treats the grounds of the motion to dismiss the appeal but which makes no reference to the question of mootness. It is, of course, apparent that no order of this court can give to Sorrells more or less peanut acreage during the year 1954 than was fixed by the Review Committee. This court has said that as a general rule it will not decide questions after their decision has become useless. Ex parte McFry, 219 Ala. 492, 493, 122 So. 641, and cases cited. In the McFry case it was observed: If a case has become a moot case, there is no necessity for a judgment, or no end that the law recognizes sufficient to be accomplished by the judgment sought, the court will decline to consider the merits, and dismiss the case. Some state courts have adopted an exception to the general rule of mootness by deciding moot cases when questions of great public interest are involved which can be settled by the court's decision. One of the reasons for the mootness ruleeconomy of judicial endeavoris said not to apply where the questions are very important to the whole public. Assuming arguendo that an authoritative decision on the merits of this case would be sufficiently important to the public as to invoke the public interest exception, we are convinced that our decision would not settle the questions presented, which concern the construction of an Act of Congress as well as the construction and validity of certain rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States. Hence, we feel that the public interest exception to the rule of mootness should not be applied here. Any pronouncement by this court on the merits of this case would be in the nature of an advisory opinion on matters which can only be finally determined in the Federal courts. It has been held that a suit in a state court to review a decision of a Review Committee denying application for increase in marketing quota is a `suit of a civil nature' `arising under a law of the United States' so as to be removable to federal court. Larking v. Roseberry, D.C., 54 F.Supp. 373, 374. The appeal is dismissed. Application for mandamus is denied. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and STAKELY and MERRILL, JJ., concur.