Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Codlin v. Kohlhausen

Codlin v. Kohlhausen, 181 U.S. 151 (1901)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1901-04-15
Topic: general

*152 The Chief Justice : This was a petition filed by appellees in the District Court for Colfax County, New Mexico, praying for a writ of mandamus directed to Codlin, chairman, and Salazar, clerk, of the Board of County Commissioners of the county of Colfax, commanding them to officially sign and execute certain bonds and deliver them to the designated agent of the county for sale, for the construction of a courthouse and jail. The alternative writ of mandamus was issued and due return made, whereupon, and after hearing, the District Court ordered the peremptory writ to issue, which was done, and the writ served, October 23, 1897. The case was carried on error to the Supreme Court of the Territory in June, 1898, and it appears from an affidavit in that court that the mandate of the District Court was obeyed and the bonds issued and sold ; and from an affidavit in this court that the proceeds were used in the construction of the courthouse and jail, which were completed on or about January 1, 1899. That affidavit also states that Codlin ceased to be chairman or a member of the Board of County Commissioners in January, 1899, and that Salazar ceased to be'clerk during or prior to March, 1899. The Territorial Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, August 28, 1899. 9 N.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Codlin v. Kohlhausen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 15 opinions

Headnotes

Civil Procedure — Mootness An appeal will be dismissed as moot where, after judgment below, the relief sought has been fully effected and the controversy has ceased to be live; a case must be dismissed when, by reason of intervening events, the court can no longer grant the appellant any effectual relief whatever. 181 U.S. at 153 (citing Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651)
Civil Procedure — Mootness Where a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering county officials to execute and deliver county bonds was obeyed, the bonds were issued and sold, the proceeds were used to construct the courthouse and jail, and the respondent officials left office before the appeal was taken, the case has become moot and the appeal must be dismissed without costs to either party. 181 U.S. at 153

CODLINv. KOHLHAUSEN,181 U.S. 151(1901)

21 S.Ct. 584

CODLINv. KOHLHAUSEN.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO.

No. 234.

Argued and submitted April 11, 1901.

Decided April 15, 1901.

Judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the execution of certain county bonds for the construction of a courthouse and jail having been rendered in October, 1897, the case taken on error to the appellate tribunal in 1898, and affirmed in 1899, and the bonds having been, in the mean time, issued and sold and the building constructed, and the county officials, who were the original respondents below, and are appellants here, having gone out of office before this appeal was taken, the court is of opinion that the rule approved inMillsv.Green,159 U.S. 651, and in cases there cited, should be applied.

MOTION to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion of the

court.

Mr. Andrieus A. Jonesfor the motion.Mr. R.E. Twitchellopposing, submitted on his brief.Page 152

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

This was a petition filed by appellees in the District Court for Colfax County, New Mexico, praying for a writ of mandamus directed to Codlin, chairman, and Salazar, clerk, of the Board of County Commissioners of the county of Colfax, commanding them to officially sign and execute certain bonds and deliver them to the designated agent of the county for sale, for the construction of a courthouse and jail.

The alternative writ of mandamus was issued and due return made, whereupon, and after hearing, the District Court ordered the peremptory writ to issue, which was done, and the writ served, October 23, 1897.

The case was carried on error to the Supreme Court of the Territory in June, 1898, and it appears from an affidavit in that court that the mandate of the District Court was obeyed and the bonds issued and sold; and from an affidavit in this court that the proceeds were used in the construction of the courthouse and jail, which were completed on or about January 1, 1899. That affidavit also states that Codlin ceased to be chairman or a member of the Board of County Commissioners in January, 1899, and that Salazar ceased to be clerk during or prior to March, 1899.

The Territorial Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, August 28, 1899.9 N.M. 565. An appeal from the judgment of affirmance to this court was allowed January 2, 1900, and the record filed here March 28.

We think the cause comes within the rule applied inMillsv.Green,159 U.S. 651,653, and cases cited, and the order must beAppeal dismissed without costs to either party.Page 153