Court Opinion

ID: 9592028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:09:42.610089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:13.788833
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J., Dissenting.
The briefs now before the court in this case clearly show that the controversy between the parties has become moot. However, counsel contend that the court should nevertheless decide the issues originally before the superior court for decision because the question whether an irrigation district may avail itself of the laws relating to bankruptcy of “taxing districts” is of great public importance.
After the entry of judgment denying the appellant an injunction, the irrigation district filed a petition in bankruptcy, and proceedings thereon are now pending in the United States District Court. Although the complaint asks for declaratory relief as well as an injunction to prohibit the filing of any petition in bankruptcy, it alleges that the actual controversy between the parties entitling it to that relief relates to “the rights of the defendants to file a petition under said bankruptcy act”. It is axiomatic that a court may not enjoin an act which has already been performed, and certainly no order made upon this appeal can affect the bankruptcy ■proceedings.
As all of the issues in this case became moot when the irrigation district took the action which the appellant has been attempting to prevent, it is the duty of this court to dismiss the appeal (Weiss v. City of Los Angeles, 190 Cal. 576 [213 Pac. 979]; Atkins v. Hughes, 208 Cal. 508, 509 [282 Pac. 787]) and, in my judgment, an order should be made accordingly.
Houser, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.