Opinion
No. 40194.
June 23, 1930.
APPEAL AND ERROR: Review — Scope and Extent — Moot Question. Whether the sustaining of a plea in abatement based on the pendency of an appeal in another action is or is not erroneous becomes quite moot after said appeal has been fully adjudicated.
Appeal and Error: 4 C.J., § 3128, p. 1134, n. 18.
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court. — H.J. MANTZ, Judge.
Action at law, to recover damages for the dissolution of a contract of lease. The court sustained a plea in abatement, and the plaintiff appeals. — Affirmed.
Addison G. Kistle and Robertson Robertson, for appellant.
Turner Turner, for appellees.
This case is a sequel to Peoples Sav. Bank v. McCarthy, 210 Iowa 952. The plea in abatement tendered in this case was based upon the pendency of the appeal by the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause. The affirmance of the order of the court dissolving the temporary writ in that case removes every obstacle to the assignment and trial of this action in the district court. The issues upon the plea in abatement have, therefore, become wholly moot. In view of this situation, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is, affirmed. — Affirmed.
MORLING, C.J., and FAVILLE, ALBERT, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.