From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State United Bonding Company v. Kennedy

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri
Feb 4, 1963
364 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963)

Opinion

No. 23717.

February 4, 1963.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, JACKSON COUNTY.

J. K. Owens, Thomas J. Cox, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant.

Robert L. Shirkey, Rogers, Feild Gentry, Kansas City, for respondent.


This is a proceeding instituted by appellant in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Michael J. Kennedy, a Magistrate, to accept Relator as a bondsman. The Circuit Court denied the writ and Relator appealed.

We take judicial notice of the fact that Respondent no longer holds the office of Magistrate in Jackson County.

The general rule is that mandamus will not lie against an officer after the expiration of his term of office. 38 C.J. Mandamus, page 604, 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 51 page 84. A writ directed to Respondent commanding him to accept Relator as a bondsman would be a useless thing.

Relator says that his case involves a matter of public interest and for that reason should not be dismissed. The petition discloses that Relator asserts only its private rights. The issue of public interest, if in the case at all, is so remote as to prohibit application of the public interest rule.

The question presented having become moot, the appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

State United Bonding Company v. Kennedy

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri
Feb 4, 1963
364 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963)
Case details for

State United Bonding Company v. Kennedy

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE RELATION OF UNITED BONDING COMPANY OF…

Court:Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri

Date published: Feb 4, 1963

Citations

364 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963)

Citing Cases

Heintz v. Hudkins

This point is based on the following facts, of which we take judicial notice. State ex rel. United Bonding…

Boyer v. Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribes

Normally, an appeal will be dismissed where it appears that only a moot question is involved. See Bedford v.…