Case Name: B. E. LA DOW & CO. v. WILSON et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1921-07-12
Citations: 82 Okla. 238
Docket Number: No. 10264
Parties: B. E. LA DOW & CO. v. WILSON et al.
Judges: PITCHFORD. V. C. J., and MILLER, ELTING, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
B. E. LA DOW & CO. v. WILSON et al.
No. 10264
Opinion Filed July 12, 1921.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief-Dismissal.
Where a cause pending in. this court has been set for hearing on the regular printed docket, and no appearance is made on' behalf of the plaintiff in error nor brief filed in compliance with rule'No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi), and no showing'made why the cause has not been briefed, this court will assume that the appeal has been abandoned, and the same will be dismissed for failure to file brief.
Error from District Court, Kay CotiPty; Wm. M. Bowles, Judge.
Action by Joseph W. Wilson, A. A. McFallj and Charles M. Baird against B. E. LaDow & Company to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Dismissed.
J. L. Cooper and John J. Jones, for plaintiff in error.
Fleming & Swarts, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
KENNAMER, J.
This is an appeal from the district court of Kay county by B. E. La Dow & Company, plaintiff in error, against Joseph W: "Wilson, A. A. McFall, and Charles M.. Baird, as defendants in error.
This cause was set for hearing on the 21)st day of June, 1021. No appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and no brief has been filed by plaintiff in error nor excuse presented to the court why the cause has not been briefed on behalf of the plaintiff in error. Under rule No. 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi) the appeal is subject to dismissal. It is, therefore, ordered by the court that the appeal herein be, and the same is dismissed.
PITCHFORD. V. C. J., and MILLER, ELTING, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.