Case ID: okla_28/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KANE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LATHIM v. SCHLACK.
    No. 1669.
    Opinion Filed March 21, 1911.
    (114 Pac. 608.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Absence of Brief. Where no briefs have been filed by plaintiff in error within the time required by rule of court, and no resistance offered^to a motion to dismiss on that ground, and no leave asked to file briefs out of time, the motion to dismiss ought to be sustained.
    ('Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Gowrt, Pittsbwg County; Preslie B. Gole, Judge.
    
    Action between J. M. Lathim and G-. D. Schlack. From the judgment, Lathim brings error.
    Dismissed.
    See, also, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968.
    
      Chester A. Leinbach, -for plaintiff in error.
    
      Arnote & Rogers, for defendant' in error.
   KANE, J.

This cansé comes on to be heard upon a motion to strike the case-made from the files and to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that no briefs have 'been filed by the plaintiff in error within 40 days of the filing of the petition in error, as required hy rule of the Supreme Court. The record shows that the petition in error was filed on the 9th day of May, 1910, and up to this date no briefs have been filed, and no showing made by plaintiff in error why they have not been filed, nor any extension of time asked within which to file the same.

The motion to dismiss ought to be sustained. It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.