
    I. B. Padgitt et al. v. Young County et al.
    No. 3256.
    Decided March 23, 1921.
    (229 S. W., 459.)
    Practice in Supreme Court — Judgment—Payment—Moot Case.
    Where it is shown to the Supreme Court that the judgment sought to be reviewed Has been paid off and discharged, though not by the plaintiffs in error complaining of it, the case becomes a moot one and will not be determined, but the writ of error will be dismissed. (P. 98).
    Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District, in an appeal from Clay County.
    Padgitt and others obtained writ of error on the affirmance on their appeal (204 S. W., 1046) of a judgment recovered against them by Young County.
    
      I. W. Stephens, Taylor, Allen & Taylor, and Miller & Miller, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      John C. Kay, P. A. Martin, Corrigan, Montgomery & Britain, and J. W. Akin, for defendant in error.
   Mb. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is withdrawn from the Commission of Appeals.

It appearing that the judgment against the plaintiffs in error which is sought to be here reviewed has been paid and satisfied and the liability of the plaintiffs in error extinguished, we can see no reason for continuing the case here and determining the questions presented, as the plaintiffs in error insist. While the payment of the judgment seems not to have been made by the plaintiffs in error themselves, but by a stranger to the record out of whose transactions the suit arose, yet it is not controverted that the payment made has been accepted by Young County, the judgment creditor. This precludes any further assertion by Young County of the liability of the plaintiffs in error. Young County has by motion here advised us of such payment and expressly recognizes the satisfaction of the judgment. The case has therefore become moot, and the writ of error is ordered dismissed.  