Case Name: HANTEN BOND COMPANY, Respondent, v. PATTERSON et al., Appellants
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1916-02-01
Citations: 36 S.D. 587
Docket Number: File No. 3849
Parties: HANTEN BOND COMPANY, Respondent, v. PATTERSON et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
HANTEN BOND COMPANY, Respondent, v. PATTERSON et al., Appellants.
(156 N. W. 70.)
(File No. 3849.
Opinion filed February 1, 1916.)
Appeals — Error—Brief—Failure to File Brief in Time — Order to Show Cause, No Response — Affirmance.
Appellant failed to serve and file briefs within statutory period; and, upon an order to show cause procured toy respondent, appellant having failed to respond thereto, held, the appeal will toe deemed abandoned, and the judgment below affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County. H'on. Carr G. Si-iErwood, Judge.
Action by the Hanten Bond Company, a corporation, against J. A. Patterson and others, constituting the County Board of Equalization of Codington ‘County. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
A. J. Haugan, for Appellants.
Hanten & Hanten, and Perry -P. Gault, for Respondent.

Opinion:
POLEEY, P. J.
In this case notice of appeal was served on the respondent .on the 29th day of 'June, 1915, and certified copy thereof filed in this court on the 8th day of July, 1915. On the 10th day of December, 1915, the record was settled and filed by the trial court. Appellant having failed to' serve or file his brief within the time allowed by law, respondent procured an order citing' appellant to show cause why the judgment appealed from should not be affirmed because of appellant's failure to prosecute said appeal. To said order appellant made no response, nor have any steps been taken to: prosecute said appeal.
This being the case, the appeal will be deemed ft> have been abandoned, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.