in Re: Myrtis Dightman, Sr., Myrtis Dightman, Jr., John B. Dightman ( 2005 )

                     NO. 12-05-00118-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

  TYLER, TEXAS

  §

IN RE: MYRTIS DIGHTMAN, SR.,

MYRTIS DIGHTMAN, JR., AND                     §     ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

JOHN B. DIGHTMAN,

RELATORS                                                        § 

---

---

  MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Relators Myrtis Dightman, Sr., Myrtis Dightman, Jr., and John B. Dightman seek a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to hear their application for a temporary injunction to enjoin the cutting of timber on the land involved in a partition suit.

            In response to the relators’ petition, real party in interest Georgia-Pacific Shared Services Corporation (“GP”) has furnished an affidavit from its Cleveland Location Manager, Bill Kuhn. Kuhn states in his affidavit that the cutting of the timber was finished on September 8, 2004. Consequently, GP contends, this proceeding is moot. We agree.

            A case becomes moot when a court’s actions cannot affect the rights of the parties. See Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc. v. Read, 104 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Tex. 2003) (citing VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993)). Here, the relators seek to temporarily enjoin the cutting of the timber. Because the timber has been cut, directing the trial court to conduct a hearing on the relators’ application would serve no purpose. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

                                                                                                     JAMES T. WORTHEN

                                                                                                                 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered May 18, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)