
    Commonwealth ex rel., Appellant, v. Floyd.
    
      Appeals — Quo warranto — Expiration of term of office — Moot question.
    
    Where a relator in a quo warranto proceeding delays his appeal and takes no step to advance a hearing upon it, and, pending final hearing, the term of office in dispute expires, the question is wholly moot, and the appeal will be dismissed.
    Argued April 12, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 292, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1921, No. 438, for defendant, overruling demurrer, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Patrick J. Finn v. David J. Floyd.
    Before Moschziskbr, C. J., Frazer, Simpson, Kephart and Schaefer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Demurrer to respondent’s answer in quo warranto proceedings. Before Fuller, P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Demurrer overruled and judgment for respondent. Relator appealed.
    
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    
      Richard B. Sheridan, with him Charles B. Lenahan, for appellant.
    TP. A. Valentine, for appellee,
    was not heard.
    May 8, 1922:
   Per Curiam,

On June 22,1921, a final judgment, in a quo warranto proceeding to test the right of respondent to hold the office of tax collector, at Miners Mills, Luzerne County, was entered'in his favor. The relator failed to appeal until December 22,1921, and then he took no step to advance the hearing of his case; it was reached, in regular order, April 12, 1922; in the meantime, the term of office expired, January 1, 1922. On the facts stated, the questions sought to be brought to our attention are all moot.

The appeal is dismissed.  