Panama Canal Company v. Irvin H. Mason

Fifth Circuit

Panama Canal Company v. Irvin H. Mason

469 F.2d 1120, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6367

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1972

Docket72-1235

StatusPublished

This text of 469 F.2d 1120 (Panama Canal Company v. Irvin H. Mason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Panama Canal Company v. Irvin H. Mason, 469 F.2d 1120, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6367 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Panama Canal Company sued in a Canal Zone Magistrate’s Court to eject defendant from one of plaintiff’s apartments which it provided to its employees in the Canal Zone. Defendant’s employment with plaintiff had been terminated, but defendant refused to move out of the apartment. The Magistrate’s Court rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant was ejected. Defendant appealed to the United- States District Court for the Canal Zone, and after trial de novo the District Court rendered judgment for plaintiff. Both parties state in their briefs that defendant has been deported from the Canal Zone' since the trial in the District Court.

Defendant’s original object in this case was to retain possession of the apartment. Since he is now outside the Canal Zone, a judgment in his favor at this point in time would have no effect.

The appeal is dismissed for mootness.

Dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Panama Canal Company sued in a Canal Zone Magistrate’s Court to eject defendant from one of plaintiff’s apartments which it provided to its employees in the Canal Zone. Defendant’s employment with plaintiff had been terminated, but defendant refused to move out of the apartment. The Magistrate’s Court rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant was ejected. Defendant appealed to the United- States District Court for the Canal Zone, and after trial de novo the District Court rendered judgment for plaintiff. Both parties state in their briefs that defendant has been deported from the Canal Zone' since the trial in the District Court.

Defendant’s original object in this case was to retain possession of the apartment. Since he is now outside the Canal Zone, a judgment in his favor at this point in time would have no effect.

The appeal is dismissed for mootness.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 F.2d 1120, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panama-canal-company-v-irvin-h-mason-ca5-1972.