Youngblood v. Incorporated Town of Wewoka

1923 OK 516, 225 P. 695, 95 Okla. 28, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 73
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 17, 1923
Docket13849
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1923 OK 516 (Youngblood v. Incorporated Town of Wewoka) 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
Youngblood v. Incorporated Town of Wewoka, 1923 OK 516, 225 P. 695, 95 Okla. 28, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 73 (Okla. 1923).

Opinion

HARRISON, J,

This was an action by M. S. Youngblood et al. to enjoin the town of Wewoka, through its officials, from entering into a contract for a water works system. The court denied the injunction and plaintiffs below appealed to this court. In the meantime, there being' no superse-deas bond, the contract sought to be enjoined has been let and ratified by the citizens of Wewoka.

On June 20, 1923, defendants in error filed motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground :

*29 First. -That the question presented by this appeal has now become a moot question.

Second. That the act sought to be enjoined in this action has been done. * * *

Under the above state of facts, the question involved has become moot. In such cases this court will dismiss the appeal. Doctors Oil Co. v. Adair, 83 Okla. 53, 200 Pac. 858: Teter v. Board of Education, 85 Okla. 16, 204 Pac. 129; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 200, 206 Pac. 200; Atkins v. Page, 86 Okla. 290, 208 Pac. 824.

The action being to enjoin officials from doing an act which has already been done, this, court will not issue its mandate for injunction. Teter v. Board of Education; Drummond v. City of Ada, supra.

Under the facts in this case, and the foregoing authorities, the motion to dismiss is sustained. Appeal dismissed.

JOHNSON, C. J., ail'd McNEILL, KEN-NAMER, and BRANSON, J.I., concur.

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

Related

Campbell v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
1935 OK 735 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Chizek v. City of Omaha
253 N.W. 441 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1934)
Roper v. Board of Ed., City of Okmulgee
1934 OK 108 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Maxwell v. City of Tulsa
1930 OK 445 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Skouby v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 60
1930 OK 273 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Fanning v. Board of Ed. of City of Tulsa
1929 OK 532 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Worrell v. Pruitt & Co.
1929 OK 225 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Simms v. Smith
1929 OK 184 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Goldsmith v. City of Ardmore
1929 OK 124 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Wellman v. Hopkins
1928 OK 14 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Raasch v. Dancy
1927 OK 351 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1923 OK 516, 225 P. 695, 95 Okla. 28, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngblood-v-incorporated-town-of-wewoka-okla-1923.