Drummond v. City of Ada

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Drummond v. City of Ada

1922 OK 127, 206 P. 200, 86 Okla. 32, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 99

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket12930

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1922 OK 127 (Drummond v. City of Ada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drummond v. City of Ada, 1922 OK 127, 206 P. 200, 86 Okla. 32, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 99 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

KENNAMER, J.

This appeal is prosecuted by C. R. Drummond et al., plaintiffs in error, to reverse an order of the district "court of Pontotoc county discharging and dissolving a temporary injunction enjoining the defendants in error from proceeding to pave improvement district No. 9 in the city of Ada.

The plaintiffs in error filed no supersedeas bond, and it appears from the motion filed by the defendants in error to dismiss the appeal that the paving of improvement district No. 9 has been completed. No. response ’has been filed to the motion to dismiss the appeal.

It is obvious from the ¿acts, as disclosed by the motion to dismiss the appeal, that the acts sought to be enjoined have been performed and that no practical relief may be afforded the plaintiffs in the action. This court in numerous cases has held that when a case becomes moot and the issues involved in the action are abstract and hypothetical, the appeal will be dismissed. Thomason, County Treasurer, v. Board of County Commissioners of Delaware County, 56 Okla. 79, 155 Pac. 881; Parrish v. School Dist. No. 19, 68 Oklahoma, 171 Pac. 461; Killough v. Ft. Supply Tel. Co., 55 Okla. 198, 154 Pac. 1192; Doctor’s Oil Co. v. Adair et al., 83 Okla. 53, 200 Pac. 858.

PITCHFORD, Y. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and MILLER, JJ„ concur.

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

KENNAMER, J.

This appeal is prosecuted by C. R. Drummond et al., plaintiffs in error, to reverse an order of the district "court of Pontotoc county discharging and dissolving a temporary injunction enjoining the defendants in error from proceeding to pave improvement district No. 9 in the city of Ada.

The plaintiffs in error filed no supersedeas bond, and it appears from the motion filed by the defendants in error to dismiss the appeal that the paving of improvement district No. 9 has been completed. No. response ’has been filed to the motion to dismiss the appeal.

It is obvious from the ¿acts, as disclosed by the motion to dismiss the appeal, that the acts sought to be enjoined have been performed and that no practical relief may be afforded the plaintiffs in the action. This court in numerous cases has held that when a case becomes moot and the issues involved in the action are abstract and hypothetical, the appeal will be dismissed. Thomason, County Treasurer, v. Board of County Commissioners of Delaware County, 56 Okla. 79, 155 Pac. 881; Parrish v. School Dist. No. 19, 68 Oklahoma, 171 Pac. 461; Killough v. Ft. Supply Tel. Co., 55 Okla. 198, 154 Pac. 1192; Doctor’s Oil Co. v. Adair et al., 83 Okla. 53, 200 Pac. 858.

PITCHFORD, Y. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and MILLER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 127, 206 P. 200, 86 Okla. 32, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drummond-v-city-of-ada-okla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack