Case Name: MANDRY et al. v. BROWN CRACKER & CANDY CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-21
Citations: 248 S.W. 1095
Docket Number: No. 6896
Parties: MANDRY et al. v. BROWN CRACKER & CANDY CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 248
Pages: 1095–1096

Head Matter:
MANDRY et al. v. BROWN CRACKER & CANDY CO.
(No. 6896.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
Feb. 21, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Mareh 21, 1923.)
Appeal and error <&wkey;>773(2) — Appellant’s failure'!» file brief until'two days before submission ground for dismissal.
Where transcript on appeal was filed July 17th, and case set for submission in its regular order on February 14th following, and appellant’s brief was not filed until February 12th, two days before its submission, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution, under the rules of practice prescribed by Rev. St. art. 2115, and rules 38, 40, and 102.
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.
Action t>y tlie Brown Cracker & Candy Company against George P. Mandry and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution.
Motion granted.
C. A. Davies and R. L. Neal, both of San Antonio, for appellants.
Birkhead & Lang and E. Stevens, all of San Antonio, for appellee.

Opinion:
COBBS, J.
The transcript in this ease was filed on the 17th day of July, 1922. The case was set down in its regular order for submission on the 14th day of February, 1923. Appellants filed their brief on the 12th day of February, 1923. two days before its submission. Appellee filed no brief, but filed a written motion on the 10th day of February, 1923, two days previous to the time when the appellants filed their brief to dismiss the appeal. Appellants filed no reply to the motion, and it comes before us solely on the motion to dismiss the appeal which violates the practice in such cases prescribed by article 2115, R. S., and rules 38, 40 (230 S. W. viii) and 102 of the Texas court rules prepared by the Supreme Court for the preparation of cases on appeal. These rules have been violated in preparing this case for appeal, and the appellee is clearly within its legal rights in presenting this motion. Weston v. Patterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 165 S. W. 1195, opinion by Justice Moursund. Attorneys should do well to bear this case in mind when filing transcripts.
The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
®=5Por otter oases see same topic and KB1V-NUMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes