Case ID: okla_40/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      HAYES, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOYD v. WEBB QUEENSWARE CO.
    No. 2950.
    Opinion Filed November 11, 1913.
    (136 Pac. 422.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Failure to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error files no brief as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 95 Pac. vi), the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Johnston County;
    
    
      Nick Wolfe, Judge.
    
    Action by the Webb Queensware Company against A. Boyd. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Dismissed.
    
      Cornelius Hardy, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Bledsoe & Treadwell, for defendant in error.
   HAYES, C. J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the court below against plaintiff in error upon an account. Since the institution of the appeal, plaintiff in error has filed a plea in abatement. Defendant in error, before the cause was reached for submission, filed a brief in opposition to the plea in abatement and upon the merits of the case, urging that the same should be affirmed. Plaintiff in error, on the other hand, has failed to file any brief in support o'f his plea in abatement, or upon the merits of his cause.

Since he has failed to comply with rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 95 Pac. vi) by filing briefs, his appeal should be "and is dismissed, for want of prosecution. Baker v. Forrest, 26 Okla. 12, 108 Pac. 407; Bohanan v. Wilson, 27 Okla. 753, 117 Pac. 209; Rice v. Jones, 32 Okla. 734, 124 Pac. 67.

All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., absent and not participating.