
    MUIRHEID v. NOELL et al.
    No. 9528
    Opinion Filed April 16, 1918.
    (172 Pac. 435.)
    Error from District Court, Kay County; William M. Bowles, Judge.
    Action between J. F. Muirheid and William F. Noell and others. Judgment for the latter, and the former brings error.
    Dismissed.
    Sam K. -Sullivan and J. H. Hill, for plaintiff in error.
    G. A. Chappell, for defendants in error.
   PER OTJRIAM.

A motion to dismiss this proceeding in error upon the ground that the question involved herein had become purely abstract and hypothetical was overruled- by the court on the 26th day of March, 1918. Subsequently, in presenting another question in a proceeding growing out of the same transaction, wherein the same, counsel appeared for the same parties, it was admitted by counsel for both sides that the question involved herein has become moot and hypothetical.

In pursuance of this admission and agreement of counsel, the former order overruling said motion to dismiss is vacated and set aside, and said motion to dismiss is hereby sustained, and said proceeding in error is dismissed at the cost of plaintiff in error, for the reason that the question involved has become abstract and hypothetical.

All the Justices concur.  