Logan v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa

Court of Appeals of Texas

Logan v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa

70 S.W.2d 763, 1934 Tex. App. LEXIS 415

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 16, 1934

DocketNo. 4212.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 S.W.2d 763 (Logan v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Logan v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa, 70 S.W.2d 763, 1934 Tex. App. LEXIS 415 (Tex. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

MARTIN, Justice.

On August 30, 1933, an order of sale was issued out of the district court of Gray county, Tex., directed to the sheriff of said county, commanding him to sell certain property therein described on the first Tuesday in October, 1933. On September 30, 1933, appellant filed what must be treated here as an application for a temporary injunction to restrain said sale. On October 2, 1933, upon a hearing, the district court of said county denied said application, and an appeal from such order was perfected to this court. On October 3, 1933, the date named in said order of sale, all the property therein described was regularly 'sold and proper conveyances executed and delivered to the purchaser thereof. Appellee has filed motion to dismiss this appeal, supporting same with proper evidence of the above facts. The motion is granted. Manifestly the writ asked for could operate only upon unperformed acts. The question presented is moot. We do not deal with questions shown to be purely academic. Anderson et al. v. Oity of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S.W. (2d) 353, and numerous authorities there cited.

Appeal dismissed.

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

MARTIN, Justice.

On August 30, 1933, an order of sale was issued out of the district court of Gray county, Tex., directed to the sheriff of said county, commanding him to sell certain property therein described on the first Tuesday in October, 1933. On September 30, 1933, appellant filed what must be treated here as an application for a temporary injunction to restrain said sale. On October 2, 1933, upon a hearing, the district court of said county denied said application, and an appeal from such order was perfected to this court. On October 3, 1933, the date named in said order of sale, all the property therein described was regularly 'sold and proper conveyances executed and delivered to the purchaser thereof. Appellee has filed motion to dismiss this appeal, supporting same with proper evidence of the above facts. The motion is granted. Manifestly the writ asked for could operate only upon unperformed acts. The question presented is moot. We do not deal with questions shown to be purely academic. Anderson et al. v. Oity of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S.W. (2d) 353, and numerous authorities there cited.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.W.2d 763, 1934 Tex. App. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-first-nat-bank-trust-co-of-tulsa-texapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack