Arinwine v. Sawner

• Decision Date: 29 September 1925
• Docket Number: 15843.
• Citation: 240 P. 1042,112 Okla. 252,1925 OK 764
• Parties: ARINWINE et al. v. SAWNER et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

240 P. 1042

112 Okla. 252, 1925 OK 764

ARINWINE et al. v. SAWNER et al.

No. 15843.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 29, 1925

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1925.

Syllabus by the Court.

When the question presented by an appeal has become moot, the appeal will be dismissed.

A court will not entertain an action to enjoin a party from doing that which he has already done.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 5.

Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Hal Johnson, Judge.

Suit by A. N. Arinwine and others against Mrs. L. L. Sawner and others to cancel contract and for an injunction. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Dismissed.

Erwin & Erwin, of Chandler, for plaintiffs in error.

Andrews & Andrews and Emery A. Foster, all of Chandler, for defendants in error.

THOMPSON C.

This action was commenced in the district court of Lincoln county Okl., by A. N. Arinwine, H. Benford, and G. H. Hudson plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, against Mrs. L. L Sawner, Paul Prince, county treasurer of Lincoln county Walter Smith, and J. E. Hereford, as president and clerk, respectively, of the board of education of the city of Chandler, Okl., and Carl Wright, as treasurer of school district No. 1 of Lincoln county, Okl., defendants in error, defendants below, for judgment declaring that Mrs. L. L. Sawner had no legal right to teach a certain school in the city of Chandler during the current school year of 1924 and 1925, and for a restraining order against her prohibiting her from teaching or superintending said school or receiving any salary therefor during said period, and that the other defendants be restrained and enjoined from issuing any warrant to said defendant or paying same from the funds provided for said school, and for general relief and costs.

After the original petition was filed, certain answers were filed by some of the defendants, and a demurrer was filed by the defendant Mrs. L. L. Sawner upon the grounds that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute an action against the defendant; that there was a misjoinder of parties plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs had no legal capacity to sue; that it was an attempt to control the official discretion of the school board; and that the plaintiffs had a plain and adequate remedy at law.

An amendment was filed to the petition, raising the constitutional question, in that the statutes under which the board was acting discriminated against the negro race, to which the plaintiffs belonged, and that said statutes deprived the plaintiffs of the privileges guaranteed to them by the state and federal Constitutions, to which amended petition the demurrer heretofore referred to was refiled, and upon hearing of said demurrer the court sustained the same and the plaintiffs elected to stand upon their petition as amended, and the court thereupon dismissed the cause at the cost of the plaintiffs, which action of the court was duly excepted to by the plaintiffs, and the cause comes regularly upon appeal to this court from said judgment sustaining said demurrer and dismissing the petition of the plaintiffs....