Dehail v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Dehail v. City of Los Angeles

51 P. 27, 5 Cal. Unrep. 866

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1897

DocketL. A. No. 325

StatusPublished

This text of 51 P. 27 (Dehail v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dehail v. City of Los Angeles, 51 P. 27, 5 Cal. Unrep. 866 (Cal. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

TEMPLE, J.

This action was brought to restrain and enjoin the issuance of a deed by the street superintendent of Los Angeles. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint, which was sustained. Thereupon the plaintiff declined to amend, and, judgment having been thereafter entered, took this appeal. Since the appeal he has redeemed [867]*867the property by paying the taxes, costs and percentage required. There is therefore nothing practical in the appeal, and to decide the questions raised would be to determine mere abstract propositions. The courts cannot be justly called upon to decide mere moot questions. When the plaintiff redeemed the property, he abandoned his remedy by the appeal, and ought to have dismissed it: Foster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611, 47 Pac. 591. The appeal is dismissed.

.We concur: Henshaw, J.; McFarland, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEMPLE, J.

This action was brought to restrain and enjoin the issuance of a deed by the street superintendent of Los Angeles. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint, which was sustained. Thereupon the plaintiff declined to amend, and, judgment having been thereafter entered, took this appeal. Since the appeal he has redeemed [867]*867the property by paying the taxes, costs and percentage required. There is therefore nothing practical in the appeal, and to decide the questions raised would be to determine mere abstract propositions. The courts cannot be justly called upon to decide mere moot questions. When the plaintiff redeemed the property, he abandoned his remedy by the appeal, and ought to have dismissed it: Foster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611, 47 Pac. 591. The appeal is dismissed.

.We concur: Henshaw, J.; McFarland, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 P. 27, 5 Cal. Unrep. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dehail-v-city-of-los-angeles-cal-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack