Opinion ID: 1532831
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Dismissal of CV-79-254

Text: At oral argument, Roy conceded that the determination on the merits of his appeal in CV-78-610 would be dispositive of his appeal in CV-79-254. The record in CV-79-254 reveals that Roy's purpose, and a proper purpose as well, was to prevent his appeal in CV-78-610 from being rendered moot by the uncontested issuance of a renewal license to Baker. In view of our disposition of CV-78-610, we need not consider the merits of CV-79-254. However, Roy complains that the Superior Court award of counsel fees to the defendants was improper. We do not reach the merits of that issue because no order was entered for the payment by Roy of any specific amount as counsel fees. We hold that the order as entered was ineffectual to create any right in the defendants to collect any amount of money from the plaintiff. The dismissal will be affirmed, with the ineffectual reference to counsel fees vacated. The entries are: In CV-78-610 Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed. In CV-79-254 Appeal sustained in part. Judgment modified by vacating the reference to counsel fees, and as modified, affirmed. Costs allowed to appellee Baker only. All concurring.