Tinker v. McLaughlin-farrar Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Tinker v. McLaughlin-farrar Co., 119 P. 238 (Okla. 1911)
29 Okla. 758; 1911 OK 445; 1911 Okla. LEXIS 382
Hayes, Turner, Dunn, Kane, Williams

Tinker v. McLaughlin-farrar Co.

Opinion of the Court

HAYES, J.

Defendant in error has filed a motion herein to dismiss this proceeding, because the judgment against the plaintiffs in error in the court below has been settled and released. In support of its motion, it has filed a certified copy of the journal entry in the court below, showing, first, an assignment of the judgment; and, second, that the same has been satis *759 fied and released. The motion to dismiss has been served upon plaintiffs in error, who have made no response thereto.

It follows that the proceeding should be dismissed, because it presents only abstract or hypothetical questions for determination. Reece v. Chaney et al., 28 Okla. 501, 114 Pac. 608.

TURNER, C. J., and DUNN and KANE, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

Reference

Full Case Name
TINKER Et Al. v. McLAUGHLIN-FARRAR CO.
Cited By
12 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal — Want of Actual Controversy. Where, pending the appeal, the judgment appealed from is satisfied and released in the court below, the appeal will be dismissed, because it presents only abstract or hypothetical questions for determination, from which no actual relief can follow. (Syllabus by the Court.)