
    MARION v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.
    1. Mandamus' — -Moot Questions.
    After decision of principal case in proceedings to condemn land for sewage disposal plant adversely to interests of party seeking to enjoin city from entering upon lands involved in such proceedings, writ of mandamus to vacate order denying-injunctive relief is denied notwithstanding injunction should have been granted under facts presented, where questions heretofore pending on application for mandamus are now moot.
    2. Costs — Mandamus—Injunction Against City.
    No costs are allowed upon denial of writ of mandamus to vacate order denying injunction to restrain city from trespassing upon lands involved in condemnation proceedings.
    Appeal from Wayne; Moynihan (Joseph A.), J.
    Submitted June 8, 1937.
    (Calendar No. 39,558.)
    Decided September 1, 1937.
    Bill by Adolph N. Marion against City of Detroit, a municipal corporation, for an injunction and other relief. Plaintiff reviews order denying temporary injunction by appeal in the nature of mandamus.
    Writ denied.
    
      Ira F. Morgan, for plaintiff.
    
      John Atkinson, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Raymond J. Kelly, Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for defendant.
   Bushnell, J.

We granted plaintiff leave to appeal, in the nature of mandamus, from an order entered by the circuit court denying him an injunction restraining the city of Detroit from entering upon lands involved in an eminent domain proceeding to acquire a site for a sewage disposal plant, and issued an order to show cause.

Although the injunction restraining the city from trespassing upon plaintiff’s lands should have been granted under the facts presented in this record, Burke v. City of River Rouge, 240 Mich. 12, the principal case, In re Petition of the City of Detroit to Condemn Lands for Sewage Disposal Plant, 280 Mich. 708, and out of which this matter arose, was decided adversely to plaintiff on June 29, 1937, and the questions heretofore pending on this application are now moot.

The application for the writ of mandamus is therefore denied, but without costs. ■

Fead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Butzel, Sharpe, Potter, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.  