Case Name: THOMPSON et al. v. MURRAY
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-08-20
Citations: 34 Okla. 521
Docket Number: No. 2655
Parties: THOMPSON et al. v. MURRAY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
THOMPSON et al. v. MURRAY.
No. 2655.
Opinion Filed August 20, 1912.
(125 Pac. 1133.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Writ of Error — Dismissal. The petition in error and case-made were filed and summons in error issued May 29, 1911. On June 23d defendant in error moved to have the petition in error made more definite and certain, by stating the names of the plaintiffs in error on behalf of whom the petition was prosecuted, which motion was sustained in September 12th. This order was never complied with, and on May 9, 1912, defendant in error moved to dismiss because of such failure, and also because the case had never been briefed. Held that, no response having been made to the motion, nor application made for leave to file briefs out of time, or to then comply with the order, the motion would be sustained.
(Syllabus by Ames, 0.)
Error from District Court, Garvin County; R. McMillan, Judge.
Action by W. W. Murray, as guardian for Ayleene and Winnie Irene Carr, against J.'B. Thompson, as trustee for the Roberts-Johnson Rand Shoe Company, and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.
Dismissed.
J. B. Thompson, for plaintiffs in error.
Carr & Field, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
AMES, C.
On May 29, 1911, the petition in error and case-made were filed and summons in error issued. On June 23d the defendant in error filed a motion to make the petition in error more definite and certain, by stating the names of the plaintiffs in error on behalf of whom the petition in error was prosecuted. On September 12th this motion was sustained. The order of the court has never been complied with. On May 9, 1912, the defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for two reasons — one because the case had never been briefed by the plaintiffs in error, as required by the rules of the court, and the other because the order of the court requiring the petition in error to be made more definite and certain had never been complied with. No response has ever been made to this motion, nor has any application been made for. leave to file briefs out of time, or make the petition more definite and certain, as required by the order of the court.
The motion to dismiss the appeal should therefore be sustained.
By the Court: It is so ordered.