Title: DRUMMOND v. CITY OF ADA
Citation: 1922 OK 127, 206 P. 20 0, 86 Okla. 32
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: April 11, 1922

DRUMMOND v. CITY OF ADA Annotate this Case DRUMMOND v. CITY OF ADA 1922 OK 127 206 P. 200 86 Okla. 32 Case Number: 12930 Decided: 04/11/1922 Supreme Court of Oklahoma DRUMMOND et al. v. CITY OF ADA et al. Syllabus ¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Moot Question-- Dismissal. When the question presented by an appeal has become moot, the appeal will be dismissed. 2. Injunction--Acts Already Done. A court will not entertain an action to enjoin a party from doing that which he has already done. Error from District Court, Pontotoc County; J. W. Bolen, Judge. Injunction by C. R. Drummond et al. against the City of Ada and another. Temporary injunction dissolved, and plaintiffs bring error. Dismissed. Green & Green, for plaintiffs in error. Thomas P. Holt, Tom D. McKeown, and G. A. Paul, for defendants in error. KENNAMER, J. ¶1 This appeal is prosecuted by C. R. Drummond et al., plaintiffs in error, to reverse an order of the district court of Pontotoc county discharging and dissolving a temporary injunction enjoining the defendants in error from proceeding to pave improvement district No. 9 in the city of Ada. The plaintiffs in error filed no supersedeas bond, and it appears from the motion filed by the defendants in error to dismiss the appeal that the paving of improvement district No. 9 has been completed. No. response has been filed to the motion to dismiss the appeal. ¶2 It is obvious from the facts, as disclosed by the motion to dismiss the appeal, that the acts sought to be enjoined have been performed and that no practical relief may be afforded the plaintiffs in the action. This court in numerous cases has held that when a case becomes moot and the issues involved in the action are abstract and hypothetical, the appeal will be dismissed. Thomason, County Treasurer, v. Board of County Commissioners of Delaware County, 56 Okla. 79 , 155 P. 881; Parrish v. School Dist. No. 19, 68 Okla. 42 , 171 P. 461; Killough v. Ft. Supply Tel. Co., 55 Okla. 198 , 154 P. 1192; Doctors' Oil Co. v. Adair et al., 83 Okla. 53 , 200 P. 858.