Case Name: HILL v. CITY OF KINGFISHER
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1913-11-18
Citations: 39 Okla. 782
Docket Number: No. 3176
Parties: HILL v. CITY OF KINGFISHER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 782–782

Head Matter:
HILL v. CITY OF KINGFISHER.
No. 3176.
Opinion Filed November 18, 1913.
(136 Pac. 775.)
APPEAL AND EEEOE — Brief—Dismissal. Where plaintiff in error has filed no brief, as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Olda. vi, 95 Pac. vi), the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Syllabus by Eobertson, C.)
Error from County Court, Kingfisher County; John M. Graham, Judge.
Action by the City of Kingfisher against R. G. Hill. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Dismissed.
Cunningham & Weiss, for plaintiff in error.
John T. Bradley, Jr., for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
ROBERTSON, C.
This appeal was filed in this court October 14, 1911. Neither party has filed a brief, nor have they offered any excuse for the failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The appeal should therefore be dismissed for want of prosecution tinder rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 95 Pac. vi). Streeter v. McCoy, 34 Okla. 490, 126 Pac. 216; Thompson v. Murray, 34 Okla. 521, 125 Pac. 1133; Streeter v. Huene, 34 Okla. 491, 126 Pac. 216; Reliable Ins. Co. v. Newcomber, 34 Okla. 759, 127 Pac. 260; M., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 34 Okla. 816, 127 Pac. 386; First Nat. Bank v. Baldwin, 34 Okla. 825, 127 Pac. 260; Snow v. Frye, 34 Okla. 826, 127 Pac. 422.
By the Court: It is so ordered.