Case Name: CITY OF DALLAS, Plaintiff in Error, v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INS. ASS'N, Defendant in Error
Court: Texas Commission of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-10-22
Citations: 265 S.W. 1113
Docket Number: No. 3927
Parties: CITY OF DALLAS, Plaintiff in Error, v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS’ INS. ASS’N, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 1113–1113

Head Matter:
CITY OF DALLAS, Plaintiff in Error, v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS’ INS. ASS’N, Defendant in Error.
(No. 3927.)
(Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.
Oct. 22, 1924.)
Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Seventh
•Supreme Judicial District.
Dismissing writ of error to 245 S. W. 946.
Allen Charlton, Asst. City Atty., and Hugh S. Grady, both of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Homer R. Mitchell, of Dallas, and Chas. L. Black, of Austin, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
STAYTON, J.
The defendant in error shows by sworn motion that it has paid to plaintiff in error the full amount of taxes, interest, penalties, etc., involved in the suit against it, and has either paid or is ready to pay all of the costs of court. The plaintiff in error has not contested the motion. Upon the authority of Padgitt v. Young County, 111 Tex. 98, 229 S. W. 459, and Richmond et ux. v. Hog Creek Oil Co. et al. (Tex. Com. App.) 239 S. W. 904, the questions involved in the case in this court have become moot, and it should be dismissed. We therefore recommend that the writ of error be dismissed, and that the costs of the Supreme Court be adjudged against the defendant in error.
CURETON, C. J. Writ of error dismissed,in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Appeals.