Case Name: B. C. STOCKWELL et al., Appellants, v. B. D. McALVAY, Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1931-10-21
Citations: 117 Cal. App. 583
Docket Number: Civ. No. 8047
Parties: B. C. STOCKWELL et al., Appellants, v. B. D. McALVAY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 8047.
First Appellate District, Division Two.
October 21, 1931.]
B. C. STOCKWELL et al., Appellants, v. B. D. McALVAY, Respondent.
Newby & Newby for Appellants.
Harry M. Irwin and Andrew H. Rose for Respondent.

Opinion:
NOURSE, P. J.
Plaintiffs sued for an injunction restraining defendant from voting certain shares of stock of the Consumers' Salt Company during the pendency of an appeal from the judgment in an action entitled McAlvay v. Consumers' Salt Co., et al. The appeal in the latter action was finally determined by judgment of the District Court of Appeal entered March 9, 1931, affirming the judgment of the lower court, which confirmed and quieted the title of McAlvay in the stock in issue. (McAlvay v. Consumers' Salt Co., 112 Cal. App. 383 [297 Pac. 135].) The respondent in the present action now moves that the appeal herein be dismissed upon the ground that all the issues involved herein have become moot because of said decision of the appellate court.
The motion should be granted upon the well-settled rule that when the controversy between the parties is ended the appeal should not be entertained solely for the purpose of entering an academic discussion of the legal questions pre sented. (2 Cal. Jur., p. 749; Foster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611, 612 [47 Pac. 591]; In the Matter of the Guardianship of Ambrose, 170 Cal. 160, 164 [149 Pac. 43].)
The appeal is dismissed.
Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.