Case Name: STATE ex rel. S. P. FREELING v. TAYLOR et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1921-07-12
Citations: 82 Okla. 220
Docket Number: No. 11740
Parties: STATE ex rel. S. P. FREELING v. TAYLOR et al.
Judges: PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 220–220

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. S. P. FREELING v. TAYLOR et al.
No. 11740
Opinion Filed July 12, 1921.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Moot Questions — Dismissal.
When it appears that the questions presented in an action or proceeding pending before .this court have become moot, the action or proceeding will be dismissed.
Original proceedings in mandamus instituted in this court.
Action for peremptory writ of mandamus brought by the State of Oklahoma at the relation of S. P. Freeling, Attorney General, against W. R. Taylor, O. A. Cargill, T. J. Bodine, A. E. Bockoven, James F. Beaty, Anna Burke Love, and J. N. Abernathy, constituting and composing the Excise Board of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
Proceedings dismissed.
S. P. Freeling, R. E. Wood, and H. C. Thurman, for plaintiff in error.
O. A. Cargill and J. F. Martin, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
MILLER, J.
This is an original proceeding brought in this court by the state of Oklahoma, at the relation of S. P. Freeling, Attorney General, against W. R. Taylor, O. A. Cargill, T. J. Bodine, A. E. Bockoven, James F. Beaty, Anna Burke Love, and J. N. Abernathy, constituting and composing the excise board of Oklahoma county, Oklahoma, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the excise board of Oklahoma county •to make a sufficient appropriation and levy of taxes for the year 1920 to enable the board of education of Oklahoma county to maintain the separate schools in the Oklahoma City district with like accommodations to the regular or white schools in said district.
Upon due notice of the application for the writ, defendants appeared and this court issued the alternative writ, to which the defendants made their return, admitting the facts stated in the alternative writ, but denying their legal right or authority to make the levy therein required. The writ of mandamus, if issued, could not now be enforced, .for the reason the assessment rolls and tax records have all been made up for the year 1920, and most of the taxes have been paid to the county treasurer by the property owners of Oklahoma county. As it appears to this court that the questions involved in this proceeding have become moot, this court will not pass upon them. Proceeding dismissed.
PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.