Case Name: ROHER et al. v. BOLSTER et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1921-07-26
Citations: 82 Okla. 275
Docket Number: No. 10265
Parties: ROHER et al. v. BOLSTER et al.
Judges: PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 275–275

Head Matter:
ROHER et al. v. BOLSTER et al.
No. 10265
Opinion Filed July 26, 1921.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief— Dismissal.
When a ease is pending in this court and is set for hearing on the regular printed docket, and the plaintiff in error fails to file brief in compliance with rule No. 7, of this court, under said rule this court may exercise its discretion and dismiss the appeal for failure to file .brief.
Error from District Court, Ellis County; T. P. Clay, Judge.
Action by Díñese Bolster and husband against Alex Roher and A. M. Benbrooke to recover damages for false representations in procuring certain deed to land. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant Alex Roher appeals.
Appeal dismissed for failure to file brief.
C. B. Leedy, for plaintiffs in error.
J. W. Burrow, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
MILLER, J.
This action was commenced in the district court of Ellis county by Díñ-ese Bolster and Henry Bolster, as husband and wife, against Alex Roher and A. M. Ben-brooke, to recover damages for false representations made by the defendants in procuring the delivery. of a certain deed which had been placed in escrow under a contract of sale. of certain lands by the plaintiffs to the defendant Alex Roher. It was alleged in the petition that there was a balance due from Roher to the plaintiffs on the sale of said land. The case was tried to a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the sum of $500. The jury's verdict was in favor of defendant A. M. Ben-brooke. Defendant Alex Roher appealed to this court and appears here as plaintiff in error.
This case was regularly assigned for submission on June 21, 1921, on the printed docket of. this court. The plaintiff in error has not filed any brief. No showing is made or reason given why briefs have not been filed in compliance with rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi). In re Seizure of One Chevrolet, Baby Grand Auto, v. State of Oklahoma, 82 Okla. 202, 200 Pac. 144.
This appeal is hereby dismissed for failure of plaintiff in error to file brief.
PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.