Case Name: CALIFORNIA CANNING PEACH GROWERS v. MYERS et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1935-06-03
Citations: 78 F.2d 194
Docket Number: No. 7705
Parties: CALIFORNIA CANNING PEACH GROWERS v. MYERS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 78
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
CALIFORNIA CANNING PEACH GROWERS v. MYERS et al.
No. 7705.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 3, 1935.
D. Hadsell, Joe G. Sweet, and Everett A. Ingalls, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Harold M. Stephens, Asst. Atty. Gen., H. H. McPike, U. S. Atty., and Dorothy Manners Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., Carl McFarland and A. H. Feller, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Seth Thomas, Sol., Department of Agriculture, and Arthur C. Bachrach, John J. Abt, and Donald B. MacGuineas, Attys., Agricultural Adjustment Administration, all of Washington, D. G, for appellees.
Before WILBUR and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges, and ST. SURE, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a bill in equity praying for an injunction to enjoin defendants from conducting a hearing under the Agricultural Adjustment Code on an order to show cause why the license issued by the Secretary of Agriculture to the plaintiff should not be revoked. A motion to dismiss the bill was granted, from which the plaintiff appeals.
Since the prosecution of this appeal, the hearing sought to be enjoined has concluded. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal because the cause is moot.
The questions arising upon this appeal have become moot. Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487, 31 S. Ct. 43, 54 L. Ed. 1121; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 16 S. Ct. 132, 40 L. Ed. 293; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147, 24 S. Ct. 611, 48 L. Ed. 913; Selden v. Montague, 194 U. S. 153, 24 S. Ct. 613, 48 L. Ed. 915; Wingert v. First National Bank, 223 U. S. 670, 32 S. Ct. 391, 56 L. Ed. 605.
The appeal is dismissed.