Case Name: SIMMER et ux. v. GRAY et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1923-10-02
Citations: 92 Okla. 235
Docket Number: No. 11966
Parties: SIMMER et ux. v. GRAY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
SIMMER et ux. v. GRAY et al.
No. 11966
Opinion Filed Oct. 2, 1923.
Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief— Dismissal.
Where the plaintiff in error files no brief as required by Rule 7 of this court, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Syllabus by Pipkham, C.)
Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.
Error from District Court, Okfuskee County; Lucien B. Wright, Judge.
Action by Homer Gray and T. Y. McMa-han against Charlie Simmer and Kizzie Simmer. Judgment rendered for Homer Gray and T. Y. McMahan. Prom the judgment, Charlie Simmer and Kittie Simmer bring error.
Dismissed.
J. H. Linebaugh and Paul Pinson, for plaintiffs in error.
Wright, Huddleston & Stephenson, for defendants; in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
PINKHAM, C.
This cause comes on to be heard upon motion of the defendants in error to dismiss the appeal for the reason that on April 18, 1923, this court ordered plaintiffs in error to file their brief on or before July 1, 1923; and that said plaintiffs in error have failed and neglected to file said brief, or to serve copy thereof as required by Rule 7 of this court.
An examination of the record shows that the plaintiffs in error are in default in failing to file briefs, although the time for so doing has long since expired.
The motion to dismiss must be sustained. Bank of Taft v. Thompson, 29 Okla. 683, 119 Pac. 124; Cox v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 296, 119 Pac. 205.
By the Court: - It is so ordered.