SANDERS v. CLINE

ESLICK v. MOTT
1912 OK 347
126 P. 230
38 Okla. 105
Case Number: 3246
Decided: 05/14/1912
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ESLICK
v.
MOTT.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Grounds of Appellate Jurisdiction--Existence of Actual Controversy. The Supreme Court will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.

Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.

Action between Merritt Eslick and M. L. Mort. From the judgment, Eslick brings error. Writ of error dismissed.

Merritt Eslick, pro se.
N. A. Gibson and Grant Foreman, for defendant in error.

KANE, J.

¶1 This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, supported by affidavit showing that the controversy between the parties has been settled, and that therefore the questions involved have become merely hypothetical. As the affidavit supporting the motion to dismiss is uncontroverted, it must be taken as true, and, under a long line of authorities by this court, the appeal must be dismissed. In the case of Cleveland-Trinidad Paving Company v. Wood, County Treasurer, 29 Okla. 684, 119 P. 123, it was held that "the Supreme Court will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow." To the same effect is National Refrigerator & Butchers' Supply Company v. Elsing, 29 Okla. 334, 116 P. 790; Edwards et al. v. Welch, 29 Okla. 335, 116 P. 791, and Bryan v. Sullivan, 29 Okla. 686, 119 P. 124.

¶2 The appeal is dismissed.

¶3 All the Justices concur.