Case ID: cal_173/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SLOSS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[L. A. No. 3774.
    Department One.
    November 17, 1916.]
    IMPERIAL LAND COMPANY (a Corporation), et al., Respondents, v. IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Appellants.
    appeal prom Order Granting Injunction Pendente Lite—Affirmance op Judgment for Defendants on Merits — Dismissal.— Where a judgment for the defendants on the merits, in an action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of an assessment of an irrigation district, has become final by affirmance on appeal, the life of an injunction granted pendente lite is ended, and an appeal by the defendants from the order granting the injunction presents merely moot questions and will be dismissed.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County granting an injunction Pendente Lite. Louis W. Myers, Judge presiding.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      A. Haines, and Haines & Haines, for Appellants.
    Valentine & Newby, for Respondents.
   SLOSS, J.

This is an appeal by defendants from an order granting an injunction pendente Ute. The injunction restrained the enforcement of an assessment levied by the board of directors of the Imperial Irrigation District. The trial of the action resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants, and we have this day filed an opinion affirming such judgment. (Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist., ante, p. 668, [161 Pac. 116].)

The judgment on the merits, which now becomes final, ended the life of the temporary injunction. The defendants have, accordingly, secured every substantial benefit which they could obtain by a reversal of the order which they seek to review by the present appeal. The rights of the parties would not be affected in any way by either an affirmance or a reversal of such order. In this state of facts, the questions presented are merely moot or academic, and the court will not exercise its appellate jurisdiction for their decision. (Foster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611, [47 Pac. 591]; Bradley v. Voorsanger, 143 Cal. 214, [76 Pac. 1031].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Shaw, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.