Jones v. East

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Jones v. East

1912 OK 636, 127 P. 261, 33 Okla. 604, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 754

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 15, 1912

Docket2127

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1912 OK 636 (Jones v. East) 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

Jones v. East, 1912 OK 636, 127 P. 261, 33 Okla. 604, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 754 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNN, J.

This case presents, error from the district court, of Kiowa county. October 15, 1910, plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, filed in the district court of Kiowa county her petition, duly verified, and caused summons to issue from said court as provided by law. The said petition prayed' a temporary injunction against the defendant in error, as defendant, enjoining him from entering upon or attempting to enter certain land described therein. It appears that plaintiff’s grantor and defendant had entered into negotiations looking to the leasing of sáid land; the question of the consummation thereof being the one mooted on the trial. The trial judge granted a temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from going upon the land. On notice, the same was dissolved, to reverse which proceedings in error have been brought.

The lease, if made, was for the use of the land involved for the year 1911, which has now long since passed; hence it is manifest that any order which we might now make in the case could not in any wise affect the substantial merits of the controversy, *605 and it is seldom that a court will determine a case simply for the purpose of determining the costs. The question presented by the briefs of counsel, due to the foregoing facts, are now abstract or hypothetical, and entirely disconnected from the granting of any actual relief, or from the determination of- which any practical relief could follow. Under these circumstances, this court has uniformly declined to consider such cases on their merits. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Territory, 21 Okla. 334, 97 Pac. 267; Miller et al. v. Ury, 23 Okla. 546, 102 Pac. 112; Hodges v. Schafer, 23 Okla. 404, 100 Pac. 537; Moore v. Wilson et al., post, 127 Pac. 260.

The cause is accordingly dismissed.

KANE and HAYES, JJ., concur; TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS, J., absent.

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

DUNN, J.

This case presents, error from the district court, of Kiowa county. October 15, 1910, plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, filed in the district court of Kiowa county her petition, duly verified, and caused summons to issue from said court as provided by law. The said petition prayed' a temporary injunction against the defendant in error, as defendant, enjoining him from entering upon or attempting to enter certain land described therein. It appears that plaintiff’s grantor and defendant had entered into negotiations looking to the leasing of sáid land; the question of the consummation thereof being the one mooted on the trial. The trial judge granted a temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from going upon the land. On notice, the same was dissolved, to reverse which proceedings in error have been brought.

The lease, if made, was for the use of the land involved for the year 1911, which has now long since passed; hence it is manifest that any order which we might now make in the case could not in any wise affect the substantial merits of the controversy, *605 and it is seldom that a court will determine a case simply for the purpose of determining the costs. The question presented by the briefs of counsel, due to the foregoing facts, are now abstract or hypothetical, and entirely disconnected from the granting of any actual relief, or from the determination of- which any practical relief could follow. Under these circumstances, this court has uniformly declined to consider such cases on their merits. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Territory, 21 Okla. 334, 97 Pac. 267; Miller et al. v. Ury, 23 Okla. 546, 102 Pac. 112; Hodges v. Schafer, 23 Okla. 404, 100 Pac. 537; Moore v. Wilson et al., post, 127 Pac. 260.

The cause is accordingly dismissed.

KANE and HAYES, JJ., concur; TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 636, 127 P. 261, 33 Okla. 604, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-east-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack