The Court notes that a habeas proceeding cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal and that even an erroneous judgment does not necessarily render the proceeding void and may not be collaterally attacked in a habeas proceeding. People v. Price, 23 Mich App 663, 669; 179 NW2d 117 (1970); Triplett v. Deputy Warden, 142 Mich App 774, 780-81; 371 NW2d 862 (1985). Thus, because Petitioner has not established that a radical defect in jurisdiction existed, the Petitioner [sic] for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be denied.

Zimmerman v. Bohr, 72 S.D. 78, 30 N.W.2d 4 (1947); Dickson v. Lord, 58 S.D. 643, 238 N.W. 21 (1931); Clarke v. Beadle County, 40 S.D. 597, 169 N.W. 23 (1918), aff'd, 41 S.D. 329, 170 N.W. 518 (1919). If, by reason of lapse of time, circumstances have changed so that the appellate court cannot render a judgment which can be made effective, the appeal must be dismissed. Vale Independent School District No. 28 v. Smeenk, 85 S.D. 182, 179 N.W.2d 117 (1970); State v. City of Veblen, 56 S.D. 394, 228 N.W. 802 (1930). When, however, it appears that the judgment, if left unreversed, will prejudice a party against whom it is rendered as to a fact vital to his rights, it cannot properly be called a moot question.

"It is well established as the law of this state that the continued existence of a controversy, pending the appeal, is essential to appellate jurisdiction." In Vale Independent School District No. 28 v. Smeenk, 85 S.D. 182, 179 N.W.2d 117, this court stated: "It is a well settled rule that an appellate court should not retain an appeal for the mere purpose of deciding a moot question.

In any event the remand of the proceedings to the defendant county board of education for further proceedings is, in my opinion, inconsistent with recently enacted statutes and the purpose of the legislature. In the recent decision of this court in Vale Independent School District v. Smeenk, 85 S.D. 182, 179 N.W.2d 117, it is said: "The legislature in the exercise of its plenary powers over the establishment and reorganization of school districts enacted a statute, Chap. 38, Laws 1967, creating the State Commission of Elementary and Secondary Education consisting of five members and provided comprehensive changes in requirements and limitations for reorganization. Chapter 38 was submitted at the general election in 1968 to a referendum vote and became effective when it was approved at such election by the electorate of the state."