Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/632

 appeal.”’ Counsel for the respondent does not consent to the granting of the motion to remand, and the facts with reference to any new contract or contracts that might exist are not a matter of record herein. The present Attorney General has specifically refused to move for a dismissal of the appeal, and asks that the case be either remanded or determined on its merits. In view of our opinion on the merits a remand could serve no useful purpose. The motion to remand, however, does not indicate that the cause is moot. Unless this court is disposed to prosecute an inquiry upon its own initiative to determine whether the case is in fact moot, it seems that there is no option other than to determine the merits of the appeal.

For the foregoing reasons the motion for substitution is granted, and the judgment its affirmed.

and, JJ., concur.

, J. (specially concurring). I express no opinion upon the merits. The trial court enjoined the defendants, as members of the Industrial Commission, from selling or delivering bonds of the state pursuant to the contract made with Spitzer, Rorick & Co. The defendants, while members of the Industrial Commission, appealed. Since that time, pursuant to the recall election held October 28, 1921, such defendants have ceased to be members of the Industrial Commission. On December 16, 1921, the Attorney General, Hon. Sveinbjorn Johnson, appeared before this court, and made the following motion:

“I move that the names of R. A. Nestos, as Governor of the state of North Dakota, Joseph A. Kitchen as Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor, and Sveinbjorn Johnson, as Attorney General, be substituted for Lynn J. Frazier, John N. Hagan, and William Lemke, as Governor, Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor, and Attorney General, respectively, constituting the former Industrial Commission.

“I further move that the case be remanded to the trial court upon the suggestion of the Attorney General for the reason that a new contract has been entered into involving the subject-matter of this appeal for further action by the trial court.”

It is apparent that the motion of the Attorney General to substitute, as parties defendant, the present Industrial Commission must be granted.