Case ID: okla_77/html/0142-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McNEILL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BAKER v. DEICHMAN et al.
    No. 9561
    Opinion Filed Feb. 3, 1920.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief-Dismissal.
    Where plaintiff in error has filed no brief as required by rule 7 of this court and given no excuse for not filing the same, it will be presumed he has abandoned his appeal, and when reached on submission, the appeal will be dismissed.
    Error from County Court, Tulsa County; H. L. Standeven, Judge.
    Action between Chester Baker and Peter Deichman and others. From the judgment, Baker brings error.
    Dismissed.
    D.' B. Crewson, for plaintiff in error.
    Prentice & Mason, for defendants in error.
   McNEILL, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Tulsa county. The petition in error was filed in this court on November 2, 1917. The case was assigned for submission at the December term, 1919. No briefs have been filed for the plaintiff in error. Rule 7 provides as follows:

“In each civil case filed in this court, counsel for plaintiff in error shall serve his brief on counsel for defendant in error at least 40 days before the case is set for submission.”

Where the plaintiff in error has failed to comply with the rule of the court, he is deemed to have waived his right to have his appeal heard in this court, and it will be presumed that said appeal has been abandoned Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 395, 106 Pac. 817.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

OWEN, C. J., and KANE, PITCHFORD JOHNSON, and HIGGINS. JJ., concur.