Case Name: In re Election of Directors and Officers of Cumberland Mining & Milling Co. McCALL et al., Appellants, v. CROCKER, Respondent
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1915-07-16
Citations: 35 S.D. 600
Docket Number: File No. 3694
Parties: In re Election of Directors and Officers of Cumberland Mining & Milling Co. McCALL et al., Appellants, v. CROCKER, Respondent.
Judges: POLLEY, J., not sitting.
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 600–600

Head Matter:
In re Election of Directors and Officers of Cumberland Mining & Milling Co. McCALL et al., Appellants, v. CROCKER, Respondent.
(153 N. W. 761.)
(File No. 3694.
Opinion filed July 16, 1915.)
Appeals — Error—Briol'—Assignments of Error, Necessity for— Affirmance — Statute—Rule of Court.
Where appellants’ brief contains no assignment of error, and attention was called to this fact by respondent, and, although appellants filed reply brief, the defect was not remedied, held, that nothing is presented for review on appeal, and, under Laws 1913, Ch. 172, requiring appellant’s brief to contain a statement of errors assigned, and 'Supreme Court Rule 5 (140 N. W. viii) requiring appellant to present assignments of error upon which he intends to rely, and .providing that any assignment of error not so -presented may be deemed abandoned, the order -appealed from will he affirmed.
Appeal from- Circuit Court, Pennington County. Hon. Lüvi McGEB, Judge.
In the matter of the election of directors and officers' of the Cumberlaind Mining & Milling Company, a corporation. From a judgment of the Circuit Court, in favor of Frank C. Crocker, A. M. McCall, and others appeal.
Affirmed.
Nichols & Wilson, and Prank D. Bangs, for Appellants.
James W. Pozder, Jr., and John W. Raish, (James W. Pozvler, of Counsel) for Respondent.
Respondent submitted that: There are no assignments of error in appellant’s abstract or statement of the case. No specifications of error are referred to.

Opinion:
GATES, J.
Appellants' brief contains no- assignment of errors. There is therefore nothing before us for consideration. Attention was called to this defect by respondent, and, although appellants filed a reply brief, the defect was not remedied.'
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed. Sorg. v. Wells, 33 S. D. 142, 144 N. W. 918; State v. Johns, 25 S. D. 451, 127 N. W. 470; Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Kelly, 23 S. D. 582, 122 N. W. 646; chapter 172, Laws 1913; Supreme Court rule S (140 N. W. viii).
POLLEY, J., not sitting.