Case Name: YUBA OIL CO. et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1932-05-12
Citations: 50 S.W.2d 416
Docket Number: No. 2244
Parties: YUBA OIL CO. et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 50
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
YUBA OIL CO. et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.
No. 2244.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
May 12, 1932.
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1932.
Adams & McAlister, of Nacogdoches, for appellants.
Hodges & Greve, of Nacogdoches, for ap-pellees.

Opinion:
O'QUINN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of tbe district court of Nacogdoches county. Tbe record was 'filed on tbe docket of this court on December 26, 1931, and on January 28, 1932, tbe case was set for submission on April 21, 1932. Tbe case is before us without briefs by either party, but appellees have filed tbeir motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. There is no excuse offered why briefs have not been filed. It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, and the statutes, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error. Haynes y. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.(2d) 811; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S.W.(2d) 462; Zurich Gen. Accident & liability Ins. Co. v. Long (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.(2d) 488; Ferguson v. Harris County (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 297.
As the motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was duly filed, and is here insisted upon, and the same being a legal right which appellees have to urge, the motion should be granted, and it is so ordered, and the appeal dismissed.