
    Commonwealth ex rel. Alexovits et al., Appellants, v. Mamatey et al.
    
      Appeals,- Supreme Court — Academic question — Quo warranto— Officers — Expiration of term. ,
    Where on appeal from a judgment on a verdict for defendants in a quo warranto proceeding to test defendants’ right to hold office in a corporation, it appeared that the terms of defendants as such officers had expired, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed without regard to the merits, the question being merely academic.
    Argued Feb. 26, 1917.
    Appeal, No. 177, Oct. T., 1916, by plaintiffs, from judgment of O. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1914, No. 73, on verdict for defendants in case Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Leonard S. Alexovits, John Hornak, Charles Barnes, Stephen F. Cherepy, Clement Ihrisky, Thomas Hafner, Peter Palko, Joseph Matejko, Stephen Uhrin, Paul Wodicks, Michael Batovic, Andrew Lenert, George J. Skodol and Ignac Gessay v. Albert Mamatey, John Kulamer, Joseph Durish, Michael Belusar, Joseph Hill, Stephen Kucma, George Hlatky, John Koza, George -Stacho, George Hricovsky, Andrew Kovac, Charles Dubosh, John A. Hrabovsky, Paul Lovas, John A. Gimesky, Michael Lancik, Joseph Vasok, L. A. Zavitovsky, Stephen Vanek, John Fedor, John S. Karabin, George A. Bjel, Ivan Bielek and John Zajrn.
    Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Stewart, Mosci-izisker and Frazer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Quo warranto to test the right of defendants to hold office as directors of a corporation of the first class. Before Davis, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
    The jury found a verdict for the defendants upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in refusing plaintiffs’ motion for judgments, o. v.
    
      G. B. Prichard, of Prichard & Trent, for appellants.
    
      Thos. S. Brown, of Broion, Stewart and Bostwich, with him B. A. and James Balph, for appellees.
    March 23, 1917:
   Per Curiam,

The complaint of the appellants at the time this quo warranto proceeding was instituted was that the appellees were unlawfully holding offices, and the writ was invoked to oust them therefrom. On January 1, 1917, the term of the office to which each of them had been elected expired, and, when this appeal was argued, at a later date, the question involved was purely academic. The facts are either admitted or undisputed, but we could not enter judgment of ouster, for the reason stated, even if there were merit in appellants’ contention.

Judgment affirmed.  