BEVERIDGE v. FAIRFAX OIL CORP.

BEVERIDGE v. FAIRFAX OIL CORP.
1936 OK 535
62 P.2d 1171
178 Okla. 379
Case Number: 27100
Decided: 09/29/1936
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BEVERIDGE et al.
v.
FAIRFAX OIL CORPORATION

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR - Dismissal - Moot Questions.
Where plaintiff in error appeals from an order and judgment of the district court granting a permit to drill an oil and gas well as an exception to the provisions of a municipal zoning ordinance, and such order is not superseded and stayed pending the appeal, where the party obtaining the order proceeds to drill the well to production, the question of whether the permit should have been granted becomes moot and the cause will be dismissed.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; R.P. Hill, Judge.

Appeal by J.L. Beveridge, Building Superintendent of Oklahoma City, et al. from an order of the district court granting a permit to the Fairfax Oil Corporation to drill an oil and gas well. Dismissed.

Beets, Zeman & Beets and Harlan Deupree, Municipal Counselor, for plaintiffs in error.
Edwards & Robinson and Howard Hopps, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 A motion to dismiss was filed in this cause on the ground that this was an appeal from an order and judgment of the district court granting a permit to drill an oil and gas well, and that pending the appeal the well has been drilled, and that under the decisions of this court in Westgate Oil Co. v. Refiners Production Co., 172 Okla. 260, 44 P.2d 993, and Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Refiners Production Co., 175 Okla. 522, 53 P.2d 1116, where a judgment granting a permit to drill was not superseded and the well was drilled and production commenced pending the appeal, the question of whether the permit should have been granted is moot. We are of the opinion that those authorities fully cover the case, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.