Case Name: CLAYTON et al. v. TRIMMER, County Treasurer, et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-05-04
Citations: 46 Okla. 244
Docket Number: No. 4356
Parties: CLAYTON et al. v. TRIMMER, County Treasurer, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
CLAYTON et al. v. TRIMMER, County Treasurer, et al.
No. 4356.
Opinion Filed May 4, 1915.
(148 Pac. 718.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — rFailure' to File Brief — Dismissal. Where plaintiff: in error has filed no briefs, as required by rule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), the.appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Syllabus by Watts, C.)
Error from District Court, Garvin Countyj R. McMillan, Judge.
Action by Tamsey A. Clayton and another against J. F. Trimmer, as County Treasurer, and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
Dismissed.
Albert Rennie, for plaintiffs in error.
Andrew Wood, for. defendants in error.

Opinion:
WATTS, C.
This action was commenced in the district court of Garvin county, by the plaintiffs in error, Clayton et al., against the defendants in error, Trimmer, as Treasurer, et al., who will be referred to as they appeared in the district court. In their petition plaintiffs ask for an injunction against the defendants, who were the treasurer and sheriff of the county, alleging that the .sheriff had issued an unlawful tax warrant against their property, and had placed the same in the hands of the sheriff, and had directed the sheriff to collect the amount of the warrant, together with the penalty and costs, praying for an injunction. The defendants filed a demurrer, which was sustained by the court, from which the plaintiffs have appealed.
Transcript of the proceedings was filed in this court September 14, 1912. Defendants waived service and entered their appearances; but neither of the parties have filed briefs, nor has there been an application for an extension of time. Therefore, under rule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), wé recommend the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
By the Court: It is so ordered.