Edmondson v. Wells

1922 OK 215, 207 P. 969, 86 Okla. 254, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 170
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 20, 1922
Docket11265
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1922 OK 215 (Edmondson v. Wells) 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
Edmondson v. Wells, 1922 OK 215, 207 P. 969, 86 Okla. 254, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 170 (Okla. 1922).

Opinion

MILLER, J.

E. A. Edmondson, as plaintiff in error, prosecutes this appeal from an order of the district court of Muskogee county, Okla., made on the 16th day of September, 1919, directing the county court of Muskogee county to appoint Oscar A. Wells as guardian of the person and estate of Harris Tucker, a minor, in the place and stead of E. A. Edmondson. This judgment was not superseded, and the county court of Muskogee county pursuant to said order appointed Oscar A. Wells as guardian of the person and estate of said Harris Tucker, a minor, and said Oscar A. Wells duly qualified and proceeded to act as such guardian until said Harris Tucker arrived at his majority, which was on the 2nd day of January, 1922.

The defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that *255 the questions sought to be raised by this appeal have become moot.

In the case of Doctors’ Oil Co. v. Adair et al., 83 Okla. 53, 200 Pac. 858, this court said:

“Where an oil and gas lease by its terms ■expires while an action is pending for the cancellation thereof, and no practical relief can be gained by a decision, the case becomes moot, and will be regarded as abstract and hypothetical, and not necessary for decision, and will be dismissed.”

See. also, State of Oklahoma v. Taylor et al., 82 Okla. 220, 200 Pac. 149; Thomason, County Treasurer, v. Board of County Commissioners, 56 Okla. 79, 155 Pac. 881; Parrish v. School District No. 19, 68 Oklahoma, 171 Pac. 461; Killough v. Ft. Supply Tel. Co., 55 Okla. 198, 154 Pac. 1192.

The appeal is hereby dismissed.

HARRISON, C. J.,' and JOHNSON, KEN-NAMER, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Revard v. Givens
1928 OK 231 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Lawrence v. Carey
1922 OK 969 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1922 OK 215, 207 P. 969, 86 Okla. 254, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmondson-v-wells-okla-1922.