Case ID: sw_199/html/0500-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MOURSUND, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ARISPE et al. v. CLARK et al.
    (No. 5927.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    Dec. 5, 1917.)
    Apeeal and Ebbob <§=>773 (2) — Failure to File Briefs — Dismissal.
    Appellant failing to file brief, and appellee’s brief not complying with Courts of Civil Appeals rule 42 (142 S. W. xiv) there must be a dismissal of appeal, instead of an affirmance.
    Appeal from District Court, Jim Wells County; V. W. Taylor, Judge.
    Action between Celso Arispe and others and- Forrest Clark and others. From the judgment, Arispe and others appeal.'
    Appeal dismissed.
    T. Wesley Hook, of Kingsville, and L. Broeter, of Alice, for appellants. Dougherty & Dougherty, of Beeville, and W. R. Perkins, of Alice, for appellees.
   MOURSUND, J.

The appellants have not filed briefs in this court, and appellees 1\⅜>⅛ filed a brief which is not in compliance with rule 42 for the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xiv). The judgment cannot be affirmed, but the appeal will be dismissed. In order for the appellees to have been entitled to an affirmance of the judgment, the case should have been briefed by them as provided in the rule cited. Suderman & Dolson v. Carson, 122 S. W. 401; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 311, 67 S. W. 152; American Warehouse Co. v. Hamblen, 146 S. W. 1006; S. W. Oil & Gas Co. v. Denny, 187 S. W. 973; Stocking v. Laas, 199 S. W. 500, this day decided by this court.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.