From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tinker et al. v. McLaughlin-Farrar Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 14, 1911
119 P. 238 (Okla. 1911)

Opinion

No. 1691

Opinion Filed November 14, 1911.

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.)

Error from Osage County Court; C. T. Bennett, Judge.

Action between George E. Tinker and others and the McLaughlin-Farrar Company. From the judgment, Tinker and others bring error. Dismissed.

Boone Macdonald, for plaintiffs in error.

T. J. Leahy and Grinstead, Mason Scott, for defendant in error.


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 satisfied 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 P. 608.

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


Summaries of

Tinker et al. v. McLaughlin-Farrar Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 14, 1911
119 P. 238 (Okla. 1911)
Case details for

Tinker et al. v. McLaughlin-Farrar Co.

Case Details

Full title:TINKER et al. v. McLAUGHLIN-FARRAR CO

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Nov 14, 1911

Citations

119 P. 238 (Okla. 1911)
119 P. 238

Citing Cases

HART v. JETT ENTERPRISES, INC

Bateman v. Riner, 170 Okla. 13, 38 P.2d 581 (1935); where the judgment below has been satisfied, writ of…

Grand River Dam Authority v. Eaton

It is note in Guin that no supersedeas bond was procured and no discussion is had in the opinion as to…