Case Name: DALY-WEST MINING CO. et al. v. SAVAGE et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1918-10-28
Citations: 253 F. 548
Docket Number: No. 4914
Parties: DALY-WEST MINING CO. et al. v. SAVAGE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 253
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
DALY-WEST MINING CO. et al. v. SAVAGE et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth. Circuit.
October 28, 1918.)
No. 4914.
Appeal and Errob <@=»76S — Briefs—Specification of Errors — Court Rules.
Brief for plaintiffs in error not containing a specification of errors on which they rely, as required by Circuit Court of Appeals rule 24 (188 Eed. xvii, 109 C. C. A. xvi), judgment must be affirmed.
Hook, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
ignoFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah; Tillman D. Johnson, Judge.
Action by Catherine Savage and others, widow and minor children of John Savage, deceased, against the Daly-West Mining Company and others, for death of deceased. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Hiram E. Booth, of Salt Lake City, Utah (William H. King, P. T. Farnsworth, Joel Nibley, F. O. Lee, Carl A. Badger, and Benjamin L. Rich, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, and William F. Hutton, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
Culbert L. Olson, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Albert J. Weber, of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
Rehearing denied January 7, 1919.

Opinion:
TRIEBER, District Judge.
The brief filed by counsel for plaintiffs in error does not contain a specification of errors upon which they rely, as required by rule 24 of this court (188 Fed. xvi, 109 C. C. A. xvi). In City of Lincoln v. Sun Vapor Street Light Co., 59 Fed. 756, 8 C. C. A. 253, decided on January 29, 1894, this court announced that this rule "will be enforced by the court, to the end that the vital issues in the case may be clearly presented." It has been enforced ever since. Kinser v. United States, 231 Fed. 856, 146 C. C. A. 52, Cooper v. Jewett, 233 Fed. 618, 628, 147 C. C. A. 426. The latest case is City of Goldfield v. Roger, 249 Fed. 39, - C. C. A. -.
The judgment must therefore be, and is, affirmed.