“The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it”
How later courts described this case
- “The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it”
- writ of mandamus to issue sewer “tap-in” permits was improper where a declaratory- judgment action was available
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Under the peculiar facts of this case I question whether appellee had an adequate remedy at law. More important, appellant granted the “tap-in’’ permits in accordance with the writ granted by the court of appeals without applying for or being granted a stay. This appeal is clearly moot and this cause should be dismissed out of hand.
Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.