STATE EX REL. SUTTON v. HARTLEY, 171 Wn. 607 (1933)

18 P.2d 840

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of W.J. Sutton et al., Respondents, v. ROLAND H. HARTLEY, Appellant.

No. 24160. Department Two.The Supreme Court of Washington.
February 6, 1933.

[1] APPEAL AND ERROR (103) — RIGHT TO APPEAL — CESSATION OF CONTROVERSY — EXPIRATION OF TERM OF OFFICE. An appeal in mandamus proceedings to compel the governor to permit access to records by the relators as a legislative committee, will be dismissed where, before the hearing, the question has become moot by reason of the expiration of the life of the committee and the defendant’s term of office.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Wright, J., entered June 23, 1932, in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action in mandamus to compel defendant, as governor, to grant access to the records of certain state officers, tried to the court. Appeal dismissed.

Coleman Fogarty, for appellant.

John H. Dunbar, Attorney General, and John C. Hurspool, Assistant, for respondents.

BLAKE, J.

The relators are members of a committee appointed by the senate of the state of Washington for the session of 1931. They brought this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, as governor, to give them access to, and permit them to examine, the books, records and accounts of his own office and the offices under his control. From a judgment ordering the writ to issue, defendant appeals.

On the hearing in this court, respondents presented a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the questions involved had become moot by reason of the expiration of the life of the committee and the expiration of appellant’s term of office.

Page 608

[1] It has been held too often to warrant further discussion that where, by reason of a cessation of the controversy, no effectual judgment can be rendered, this court will not hear a case on the merits. State ex rel. Taylor v. Cummings, 27 Wn. 316, 67 P. 565; Vollman v. Industrial Workers of the World, 79 Wn. 192, 140 P. 337; Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Fishback, 86 Wn. 225, 149 P. 945.

The uniform practice in such cases has been to dismiss the appeal (Mackay v. Dever, 49 Wn. 439, 95 P. 860) upon the motion of either appellant or respondent. State ex rel. Daniels v. Prosser, 16 Wn. 608, 48 P. 262; Wilson v. Fraser, 67 Wn. 347, 121 P. 829; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Hamilton, 80 Wn. 51, 141 P. 199; Harper v. Grasser, 86 Wn. 475, 150 P. 1175.

The appeal is dismissed, without costs to either party.

BEALS, C.J., STEINERT, TOLMAN, and MAIN, JJ., concur.

Page 609