Title: WHITTINGTON v. CITY OF ARDMORE
Citation: 181 Okla. 286, 1937 OK 672, 73 P.2d 413
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 16, 1937

WHITTINGTON v. CITY OF ARDMORE Annotate this Case WHITTINGTON v. CITY OF ARDMORE 1937 OK 672 73 P.2d 413 181 Okla. 286 Case Number: 27768 Decided: 11/16/1937 Supreme Court of Oklahoma WHITTINGTON et al. v. CITY OF ARDMORE et al. Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR -- Dismissal of Appeal Where Question Presented Becomes Moot. When the question presented by an appeal has become moot, the appeal will be dismissed. Appeal from District Court, Carter County; W. G. Long, Judge. Suit by Jewel Whittington and others against the City of Ardmore, and the State Highway Commission of the State of Oklahoma. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiffs appeal, and the defendants move to dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Brett & Brett, of Ardmore, for plaintiffs in error. W. W. Potter, of Ardmore, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 On May 8, 1937, after this proceeding was filed in this court plaintiff in error filed a motion to stay proceedings until final determination of the appeal. It is alleged therein that the City of Ardmore and the State Highway Commission were about to receive bids and let a contract for an underpass in the City of Ardmore and that unless they were so restrained such contract would be let. This motion was set and heard before this court, and on May 18, 1937, this court denied the application to stay proceedings. ¶2 A motion has been filed to dismiss on the ground that the question involved in this appeal has become moot for the reason that on May 18, 1937, pursuant to proper advertising, the bids alleged and mentioned in said complaint were let by the State Highway Commission of the State of Oklahoma, and that there is nothing more to be done by the State Highway Commission or the City of Ardmore in connection with the letting of said contract. ¶3 We are of the opinion and hold that the question has become moot. We have said that where the sole remedy sought is injunctive relief, and the act sought to be enjoined is performed this court will dismiss the appeal as moot. Roper v. Board of Education, 167 Okl. 382, 29 P. (2d) 950; Drummond v. Jeffrey, 179 Okl. 409, 65 P. (2d) 1212; Hudson v. Moore, 169 Okl. 12, 35 P. (2d) 886. ¶4 The appeal is dismissed.