Opinion ID: 2398813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suggestion of Moot Controversy

Text: Respondent contends that the controversy is now moot because the subject permit, by operation of law, automatically expired on February 28, 1965, such permit being of one year's duration and renewable annually. Boston v. Garrison et al., 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67. In reply petitioner cites the case of Isbell v. Brown, 196 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Civ.App. 1946, error refused). In that case Brown held a real estate dealer's license for the year 1945. On November 9, 1945, Isbell, the Secretary of State, revoked this license. Brown filed suit to have the revocation order set aside on November 16, 1945, and the trial court awarded judgment for him. Defendant Isbell appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals held that Brown had failed in his burden of proof to show that the order was invalid. That court also held as follows: We do not regard this case as being moot. Under the provisions of Article 6573a, § 15, the decision of this case would have some effect upon appellee's subsequent application for a license (within a period of one year after judgment, at least) and as appellee evidently desired to engage in the real estate business, something more than a mere abstract question of law is presented. See also Department of Public Safety v. Austin, 163 Tex. 280, 354 S.W.2d 376, which distinguishes the Boston case from a situation such as is presented here. Here, there is prejudice to the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of Art. 7.21, V.A.T.S. Tax.-Gen., which provided the following:    No new permit shall be issued within a period of one (1) year to anyone whose permit or permits have been forfeited, except at the discretion of the Comptroller. This is not a moot controversy because the Comptroller's order affects the petitioner's right to obtain a new permit in the light of the above-quoted provision of the statute. Petitioner's permit was forfeited on November 4, 1964, and that final order could still affect his application for a new permit which he may otherwise be entitled to now. We therefore hold that this controversy is not moot.