
    NEYLAND-SMITH CO. v. LANHAM et al. Highway Com’rs.
    (No. 7001.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    June 16, 1926.)
    Appeal and error <&wkey;>78l(4) — Questions involved in suit to restrain conceiiation of contract expiring before hearing on appeal held to become moot.
    Questions involved in suit to restrain cancellation of road maintenance contract, which expired before hearing on appeal; held moot, and appeal will be dismissed.
    Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Geo. Calhoun, Judge.
    Suit by the Neyland-Smith Company to enjoin Frank V. Lankan and others, as state highway commissioners, from canceling a contract. Injunction denied, and plaintiffs appeal. On motion to dismiss appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    O. B. Black, of San Antonio, Tex., for appellants.
    Dan Moody, Atty. Gen., and Ernest May, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
   BAUGH, J.

Appellants filed this suit on October 23, 1925, in the district court of Travis county, seeking to enjoin the state highway commissioners from canceling a road maintenance contract. Appellants alleged that the state highway commission, on or about May 1, 1925, awarded them a maintenance contract on certain designated highways in Uvalde, Zavalla, Kinney, Val Verde, and Edwards counties, running for a period of one year beginning May 15, 1925; that thereafter, on or about October 12, 1925, said highway commission canceled or threatened to cancel said contract arbitrarily and without just cause. The court issued a temporary restraining order and set the case down for hearing on October 30, 1925, at which time the appellants’ application for an injunction was denied. Hence this appeal.

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the merjts of this appeal, as it is apparent from the record that the only relief sought is temporary injunction to restrain 'cancellation of a maintenance contract, which according to its terms expired on May 15,1926. That being true, the question involved has become moot.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for that reason, which is not contested by appellants, is therefore granted and the appeal dismissed. 
      <2=s>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     