¶1APPEAL FROM AND ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
¶2Whether § 16 (c) of Philippine Act 2307 violated the Organic Act, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691, by delegating to the Board of-Public Utility Commissioners power to prescribe the contents of reports required of corporate common carriers, has become a moot question since this case was brought to this court, due to an amendment of § 16 (e), which itself prescribes in detail what the reports shall contain and thereby supersedes the order here in question. The judgment is therefore reversed, with directions to dismiss the cause without costs to either party.
¶334 Phil. Rep. 136, reversed.
¶4The case is stated in the opinion.
¶5*426■Mr. Edward S. Bailey for appellant and plaintiff in error.
¶6Mr. F. C. Fisher for appellee and defendant in error.
¶8delivered the opinion oi the court.
¶9By a judgment rendered March 8, 1916, the court beloV annulled an order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the Philippine Islands requiring a corporate common carrier to report annually various matters pertaining to its finances and operations, the ground of the judgment being that § 16 (e) of Act 2307 of the local legislature, under which the board acted, violated the organic law of the Philippines, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691, in that it confided to the board the determination of what the reports should contain and therefore amounted to a legislative power · Case Law">delegation of legislative power. 34 Phil. Rep. 136. The board brought the judgment here for review, and the earner now suggests that through a change in the local statute the question on which the judgment turned has become merely a moot one.
¶10After. the case was brought here the legislature, by Act 2694, so amended § 16 (e) as to cause the section itself to prescribe in detail what such reports should contain and thereby abrogated the provision on which the order Avas based and AA'hich the court held inválid.' That provision therefore is no longer in force, and it is to the new provision that the board and carrier must give effect. EA*en if the original provision was valid, the order made under it became inoperatiAre when the new provision was substituted in its place. Whether the order was based on a \ralid or an invalid statute consequently has become merely a moot question.
¶11In this situation aa-o are not called upon to consider the propriety of the judgment below, the proper course being, *427as is shown by many precedents, to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with a direction that it be dismissed without costs to either party. United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103; New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U. S. 170, and 161 U. S. 101; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468.
¶12Judgment reversed. Cause to be dismissed without costs to either party.