Boggess ex rel. City of Fairbanks v. Berry Corp.

I concur in the result.

Save in exceptional cases — and the present is not one of them — The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that moot lawsuits should be dismissed.

When a controversy involves a license that has expired, as does the instant case, and where, under the applicable statute, the particular license could not have been issued for a longer period, we have a classical example of a moot case.

Our course,- therefore, under numerous Supreme Court decisions, is clearly charted for us.

*263 ■ 1. Statement'of Facts.

On March 30, 1955, the appellee Boinich, at a public auction held by the United States, purchased Beverage Dispensary Licefise No. 5581. This license had been issued in pursuance to the laws of the Territory of Alaska to the appellee Berry Corporation, and authorized the latter to sell alcoholic beverages “for consumption on the premises only’’ at 418 Second Avenue in Fairbanks, Alaska, Alaska ComT piled Laws Annotated, 1949, § 35 — 4-21 (A).

Seizure of the license from the Berry Corporation by the’ United States had been accomplished on February 23j 1955. The license was for the year ending December 31, 1955.

On April 4, 1955, the appellee Boinich filed a…

This appeal is prosecuted on behalf of the City of Fairbanks, Alaska, from an order of the District Court transferring a Territorial liquor license for the year 1955 from appellee Berry Corporation to appellee Boinich over the protest of appellant.

*259 The effect of the order was to “transfer a liquor license from one location to another within the City of Fairbanks”; and the single ground of challenge presented by appellant here rests upon the contention that the District Court had no authority to transfer the location.

Before reaching the merits, however, we must turn to the suggestions of the Government as appellee that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order in question.

First it is pointed out that the license involved expired with the year 1955, § 35-4-19, A.C.L.A.1949, and this fact of course raises the question whether the appeal has become moot.

Where subsequent events, such as extinguishment of the obligation in controversy, People of State of California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 1893, 149 U.S. 308 , 13 S.Ct. 876 , 37 L.Ed. 747 , or change in the law involved, United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 1920, 253 U.S. 113 , 40 S.Ct. 448 , 64 L.Ed. 808 , render…