Case ID: okla_33/html/0633-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WILLIAMS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAWLESS v. PITCHFORD.
    No. 1067.
    Opinion Filed November 14, 1911.
    Rehearing Denied October 1, 1912.
    (126 Pac. 782.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Brief—Effect of Defects. Rule 25 of this court (20 Oída, xii, 95 Pac. viii) provides: “The brief shall contain the specifications of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered; the argument and authorities in support of each point relied on, in the same order.” Held, that, where the brief does not substantially comply with this provision, the appeal will be dismissed.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from Craig County Court; Theodore D. B. Frear, Judge.
    
    Action between P. J. Lawless and A. J. Pitehford, guardian. From the judgment, Lawless brings error.
    Dismissed.
    
      Parker & Rider, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Paul F. Mackey, for defendant in error.
   WILLIAMS, J.

Rule 25 of this court (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii) provides in part as follows:

“The brief shall contain the specifications of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered; the argument and authorities in support of each point relied on, in the same order.”

The brief of the plaintiff in error in no respect complies with the provisions of said rule.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, KANE, and DUNN, JJ„ concur.