
    (54 South. 359.)
    No. 18,513.
    ALEXANDRIA COOPERAGE CO. et al. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA et al.
    (Feb. 13, 1911.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Appeal and Error (§ 1126*) — Prosecution op Appeal — Affirmance.
    Where, pending an appeal from an order of the Railroad Commission fixing rates, appellants show that the order was recalled, and submitted the matter to the court for such orders as should be necessary, the judgment will be affirmed, at appellants’ cost.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 4430; Dee. Dig. § 1126.*]
    Appeal from Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge; H. P. Brunot, Judge.
    Suit by the Alexandria Cooperage Company and others against the Railroad Commission of Louisiana and others. Prom a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Emerson Bentley, for appellants. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen. (R. G. Pleasant, of counsel), for appellees.
   PROYOSTT, J.

In this suit a number of corporations, manufacturers of and dealers in staves, complain of an order of the State Railroad Commission changing the transportation rates on staves, and ask for an injunction against the enforcement of said order. The court ruled the Railroad Commission and the several railroads interested to show cause why the injunction should not be granted, and, after hearing, refused the injunction. The plaintiffs obtained an appeal, and lodged it in this court. They now inform this court that since the appeal was taken the Railroad Commission has recalled its said order, thereby according them the relief they sought by the suit, and that, therefore, they “submit the matter to the court for such orders and decrees as may be necessary in the premises.”

The appeal being no longer prosecuted by the appellants, we affirm the judgment, at their cost. Guy v. McDuffie, 123 La. 641, 49 South. 222; Schwan v. Peterman, 123 La. 725, 49 South. 486.  