Title: STATE ex rel. CHASE v. TURNER
Citation: 163 Okla. 303, 1933 OK 338, 22 P.2d 374
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 1933

STATE ex rel. CHASE v. TURNER Annotate this Case STATE ex rel. CHASE v. TURNER 1933 OK 338 22 P.2d 374 163 Okla. 303 Case Number: 21828 Decided: 05/23/1933 Supreme Court of Oklahoma STATE ex rel. CHASE v. TURNER Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Dismissal--Moot Question. Where, pending an appeal by petitioner for writ of mandamus requiring the court clerk to approve a supersedeas bond in a case then pending, the original case in which the bond was sought is appealed to the Supreme Court and there dismissed, there is no controversy in the application for mandamus, and this court will not retain jurisdiction of the appeal to decide abstract questions or questions involving the recovery of costs of the appeal. Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; John Ladner, Judge. Application by the State on relation of A. B. Chase, executor, et al. for writ of mandamus against Hal Turner, court clerk. From an order denying the writ, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed. E. G. Wilson, for plaintiffs in error. D. Clayton Arnold and Christy Russell, for defendant in error. OPINION: PER CURIAM. ¶1 This is an appeal by petition in error with case-made attached filed October 26, 1930, from an order of the court refusing to grant an alternative writ of mandamus against Hal Turner, court clerk, in cause No. 48628, asking that a supersedeas bond be granted and approved in cause 43485 pending in that court. ¶2 It appears that a supersedeas bond in No. 43485 was prepared and presented to the court clerk for his approval and Owen Owen, judge, denied on the 17th day of September, 1930, by proper order, a writ of mandamus prayed for by the plaintiff to require its approval, and that the appeal is taken from that order. ¶3 It now appears, upon an examination of the record, that cause No. 43485, above referred to, was appealed to this court and docketed herein as No. 21491, and on December 9, 1930, an opinion and decision was rendered therein by this court dismissing the appeal and, in effect, affirming the decision of the trial court. The question involved in the original action and in this appeal has become moot.