FARNEY v. STOCKTON PORT DIST

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

FARNEY v. STOCKTON PORT DIST. et al.*

Civ. 6108

Decided: September 06, 1938

Gumpert & Mazzera, of Stockton, for appellant. Louttit, Marceau & Louttit, of Stockton, for respondents.

On petition for rehearing it appears that the issue which was involved on the appeal in this proceeding became moot before the appellant's brief was filed therein, and that the granting of a peremptory writ of mandamus as prayed for would serve no useful or beneficial purpose.

The only purpose for which the writ of mandamus was sought to be procured in this case was to restore a pilot's commission to the petitioner for the balance of the term for which it was issued to him, for the alleged reason that the officers of the Stockton Port District had arbitrarily revoked his commission without cause and without notice. It is alleged his commission was issued May 20, 1937, “for the term of one year from the date hereof”. The commission therefore automatically terminated on May 20, 1938. This proceeding was commenced before the last-mentioned date, but the appeal from the decision of the trial court was not perfected until a few days prior to the date of the expiration of the commission. That time expired before appellant's brief on appeal was filed in this case. The issue which is involved has therefore become moot and an appellate court will not review or determine questions which have become moot, since the decision will serve no useful or beneficial purpose. 38 C.J. 949, sec. 750; O'Neal v. Seabury, 24 Cal.App.2d 308, 311, 74 P.2d 1082.

Affecting the determination of a mandamus proceeding, it is said in 28 C.J., at page 949: “Ordinarily moot questions will not be considered; and where pending the review events have occurred rendering a decision of the legal questions involved unnecessary or useless, the court will not pass upon them.”

The petition for a rehearing is therefore denied.

PER CURIAM.