Case ID: okla_86/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PITCHFORD, V. C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF ENID v. DAVIS.
    No. 10594
    Opinion Filed May 2, 1922.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief— Dismissal.
    Where a cause has been submitted in regular order, and the plaintiff given extended time in which to file briefs, and no briefs have been filed, and no further extension •of time requested, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
    Error from District Court, Garfield County: J. C. Rob-berts, Judge.
    Action by William Davis against the City •of Enid. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Dismissed.
    Geo. D. Wilson and H. Z. Wedgwood, for plaintiff in error.
    C. B. Wilson, City Attorney, for defendant in error.
   PITCHFORD, V. C. J.

On the 10th day of December, 1918, William Davis obtained judgment in the district court of Garfield county against the city of Enid in the sum of $2,500 for personal injuries caused by reason of the negligence of the city to maintain a sidewalk.

From the judgment so rendered, an appeal to this court has, been prosecuted by the city. The petition in error, with case-máde, was filed in this court on May 8, 1019. The cause was submitted in its regular order on February 14, 1922, and plaintiff in error was givqn' 20 days from that date to file briefs. This time having expired, and no briefs having -been filed, and no further extension of tim-a requested, the •appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, as authorized by rule N. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi). Hornady et al. v. Bank of Commerce of Sapulpa et al., 79 Okla. 261, 192 Pac. 1098; Wright et al. v. Waggoner et al., 80 Okla. 56, 193 Pac. 997.

'HARRISON, O.' J.," and JOHNSON, MILLER, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.