
    PITTS v. PEOPLE’S NAT. BANK OF CHECOTAH.
    No. 8621
    Opinion Filed Sept. 3, 1918.
    On Rehearing, Feb. 11, 1919.
    (178 Pac. 257.)
    
      £ Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Questions Reviewable — Abstract Propositions — Dismissal.
    Abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the detérmination of which no particular result can follow other than the awarding of the costs of the appeal-, will not be decided by this court.
    Error from District Court, McIntosh County ; R. W. Higgins, Judge.
    Suit by the People’s National Bank of Checotah against A. B. Steen, constable district No. 5, McIntosh county, John Kidd, justice of the peace, and W. J. Pitts. From the decree enjoining defendants from enforcing or attempting to enforce certain judgments theretofore obtained by them in the court of John Kidd, justice of the peace, defendant Pitts brings error.
    Dismissed.
    Neff & Neff, and John T. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.
    Charles R. Freeman, for defendant in error.
   SHARP, C. J.

On January 11, 1916, the People’s National Bank of Checotah brought suit in the district court of McIntosh county against A. B. Steen, constable district No. 5, McIntosh county, John Kidd, justice of the peace for said district, and W. J .Pitts, the purpose of which was to enjoin said defendants- from attempting to enforce the collection of certain judgments theretofore rendered in favor of Pitts and against the bank in the court of John Kidd, justice of the peace. A temporary injunction issued w^ich on final trial was made perpetual. From the decree the plaintiffs prosecute error to this court, and on - September 20. 1916, filed herein their petition in error with case-made attached. On January 6, 1917, the defendant in error filed its motion to dismiss the appeal on tlie ground that tRe issues between tbe bank and Pitts bad been fully settled. To tbe motion is attacked tbe affidavit of tbe bank’s attorney to tbe effect that subsequent to tbe date of final decree in the case at bar, plaintiff bad instituted in tbe district court of McIntosh county a new action, predicated upon the same demands as were included in tbe several judgments in tbe justice of tbe peace court, and that, pending said latter action in the district court,' tbe defendant bank bad fully paid off and discharged tbe demand of tbe plaintiff. To tbe motion to dismiss tbe plaintiff in error has made no response, so that we may accept as conclusive tbe claim of tbe plaintiff in error that the proceedings for review in this court involve only a moot question of law. As tbe case stands, no good purpose can now be served by further proceedings in this court, and it is a rule well established that in such circumstances we will not undertake to decide abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from tbe granting of actual relief, or from tbe determination of which no particular result can follow, other than the awarding of tbe costs of tbe appeal. Bryan v. Sullivan, 29 Okla. 686, 119 Pac. 124; McCullough v. Gilcrease, 40 Okla. 741, 141 Pac. 5; Loomer v. Scott, 43 Okla. 212, 141 Pac. 1107. Tbe motion to dismiss is therefore sustained.

All tbe Justices concur.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

In tbe preparation of tbe original opinion tbe response to tbe motion to dismiss tbe appeal escaped tbe court’s attention. Therefore, the statement in tbe opinion that no response was filed should be and is corrected. Upon consideration of tbe response we are of tbe opinion the case involves only a moot question of law, and that the opinion dismissing tbe appeal should be adhered to and tbe petition for a rehearing denied.  