BULKLEY v. ALBRECHT, 170 Md. 697 (1936)

184 A. 899

DOROTHY F. BULKLEY v. WILLIAM G. ALBRECHT ET AL., SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS

[No. 7, October Term, 1936.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided May 20th, 1936.

Mandamus — Review on Appeal — Moot Question — Change in Relief Sought.

Where, in the case of an appeal from the refusal of a writ of mandamus to compel the supervisors of elections to hold a registration of voters in Baltimore City on a named day, that day had passed before the hearing on appeal, the right to such relief was a moot question which the appellate court could not consider.

The fact that on appeal from the refusal of a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the supervisors of elections to hold a registration of the voters in Baltimore City on a named day, the right to such relief could not be considered because the day named had passed, did not entitle the appellant to ask a substituted form of relief, a holding that the registration of voters in the counties on that day was invalid for lack of uniformity in registration days in the state.

A resident of Baltimore City cannot complain of the illegality of the registration of voters in the counties.

Decided May 20th, 1936.

Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (O’DUNNE, J.).

Petition by Dorothy F. Bulkley for a writ of mandamus to William G. Albrecht and others, constituting the Board

Page 698

of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore City. From an order dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

The cause was argued, as of the April Term, before BOND, C.J., URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

Augustus C. Binswanger, with who was Enos S. Stockbridge on the brief, for the appellant.

Herbert R. O’Conor, Attorney General, and William L. Henderson and Charles T. LeVinness, 3rd, Assistant Attorney General, submitting on brief, for the appellees.

The opinion was delivered per Curiam.

Unreported cases.

Page 1