Case Name: SPAULDING MFG. CO. v. DILL et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-05-14
Citations: 44 Okla. 1
Docket Number: No. 1457
Parties: SPAULDING MFG. CO. v. DILL et al.
Judges: R. M. Rainey, Judge.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
SPAULDING MFG. CO. v. DILL et al.
No. 1457.
Opinion Filed May 14, 1912.
Rehearing Denied September 22, 1914.
APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Failure to File Briefs. Where plaintiff in error fails to comply with the rules of this court requiring him to serve a brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after filing his petition in error, and at the same time to file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the court, his case, on being reached for submission, will be dismissed. Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pac. 838.
(Syllabus by Harrison, C.)
Error from District Court, Pontotoc County;
R. M. Rainey, Judge.
Action by The Spaulding Mfg. Co., a partnership, against W. H. Dill, H. G. Malot, and M. W. Krause. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Dismissed.
Stone & Maxey, for plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
HARRISON, C.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Pontotoc county. The petition in error was filed in this court March 3, 1910. The cause, was assigned for submission at the November term, 1911. No briefs have been filed for plaintiff in error; no counsel noted for defendants in error.
Rule 7 of this court, 38 Okla. vii, 137 Pac. ix, requires the plaintiff in error in each civil cause to serve his brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after the petition in error has been filed, and at the same time file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the court. Although more than a year and a half elapsed between the time of filing the petition in error and the time the cause was reached for submission, and although more than six months has elapsed since same, was .assigned for submission, the plaintiff in error has filed no brief in support of its assignments. By thus failing to comply with rule 7, ante, plaintiff is deemed to have waived its right to have its appeal heard in this court. Following Le Breteon v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 Pac. 323; Walker et al. v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 521, 103, Pac. 585; Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pac. 838, the appeal is dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.