Case Name: TINKER et al. v. McLAUGHLIN-FARRAR CO.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1911-11-14
Citations: 29 Okla. 758
Docket Number: No. 1691
Parties: TINKER et al. v. McLAUGHLIN-FARRAR CO.
Judges: TURNER, C. J., and DUNN and KANE, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., not participating.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
TINKER et al. v. McLAUGHLIN-FARRAR CO.
No. 1691.
Opinion Filed November 14, 1911.
(119 Pac. 238.)
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 Mc-Eaughlin-Farrar Company. From the judgment, Tinker and others bring error.
Dismissed.
Boone & Macdonald, for plaintiffs in error.
T. I. Leahy and Grinstead, Mason & Scott, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
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 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.