gno.law

Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist.

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 3774. · 1916-11-17 · Published · 161 P. 119 · 173 Cal. 674 · 1916 Cal. LEXIS 462

IMPERIAL LAND COMPANY (A Corporation), Et Al., Respondents, v. IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT Et Al., Appellants

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Imperial County
Trial judge
Louis W. Myers
Outcome
dismissed — The appeal is dismissed.
Area
civil
Panel
M. C. Sloss (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Sloss

SLOSS, J.

This is an appeal by defendants from an order granting an injunction pendente Ute.

The injunction restrained the enforcement of an assessment levied by the board of directors of the Imperial Irrigation District. The trial of the action resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants, and we have this day filed an opinion affirming such judgment.

(Imperial Land Co.

v. Imperial Irr. Dist., ante, p. 668, [161 Pac. 116].)

The judgment on the merits, which now becomes final, ended the life of the temporary injunction. The defendants have, accordingly, secured every substantial benefit which they could obtain by a reversal of the order which they seek to review by the present appeal. The rights of the parties would not be affected in any way by either an affirmance or a reversal of such order. In this state of facts, the questions presented are merely moot or academic, and the court will not exercise its appellate jurisdiction for their decision.

(Foster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611, [47 Pac. 591];

Bradley v. Voorsanger, 143 Cal. 214, [76 Pac. 1031].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Shaw, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by