GLASS v. BANFIELD BROS. PACKING CO.

GLASS v. BANFIELD BROS. PACKING CO.
1934 OK 279
32 P.2d 713
168 Okla. 217
Case Number: 25263
Decided: 05/08/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

GLASS et al.
v.
BANFIELD BROS. PACKING CO.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Dismissal--Moot Questions not Decided.
The Supreme Court will not attempt to determine abstract, hypothetical, or moot questions, but where it is made to appear that the questions brought up for review have become moot, the proceedings will be dismissed. Parker v. U.S. Smelter Co., 80 Okla. 129, 194 P. 897; Doyle v. Clapp, 88 Okla. 88, 209 P. 324; City of Sapulpa v. Harris, Judge, 143 Okla. 69, 287 P. 1041.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Harry L. S. Halley, Judge.

Action in mandamus by the Banfield Bros. Packing Company to compel the Excise Board of Tulsa County to make a levy. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Dismissed.

F. E. Riddle, Holly L. Anderson, Co. Atty., and Joe L. Dewberry, Asst. Co. Atty., for plaintiffs in error.
W. J. Otjen and Martin & Spradling, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This was an action in mandamus to compel the excise board to make a levy for the salary and expenses of a meat inspector in Tulsa county.

¶2 Subsequent to the filing of the appeal in this court, a motion to dismiss was filed, stating that on the 22nd day of December, 1933, the plaintiffs in error fully obeyed and complied with the commands of said peremptory writ of mandamus so issued by the trial court, and that therefore the question has become moot.

¶3 A response to this motion to dismiss has been filed, in which it is admitted by the plaintiffs in error that the order of the trial court has been complied with, and in that response to the motion the plaintiffs in error state:

"That plaintiffs in error shall leave the question to the court as to whether or not it desires to retain said cause and jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of the act of the Legislature; the judgment of the trial court having been complied with by plaintiffs in error, there is no particular direct and concrete relief which can be granted to said plaintiffs in error by determining the case upon the merits."