Case Name: MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1911-12-12
Citations: 30 Okla. 539
Docket Number: No. 1338
Parties: MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 539–539

Head Matter:
MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al.
No. 1338.
Opinion Filed December 12, 1911.
APPEAL AND ERROR, —.Dismissal — Failure to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error fails to comply with rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi) of this court, requiring him to serve a brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after filing his petition in error, and at the same time to file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk, of this court, his case, on being reached for submission, will be dismissed. (Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pae. 838).
(Syllabus by Robertson, C.)
Error from District Court, Sequoyah County; John H. Pitchford, Judge.
Action in replevin by James M. Mayo and John R. Mayfield, of the firm of Mayo & Mayfield, against Thomas Mills and Lucy Mills. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
Appeal dismissed.
Robert E. Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.
W. H. Brozvn, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
ROBERTSON, C.
The petition in error and case-made in this appeal were filed in this court on January 11, 1910. No brief, as required by rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi) of this court, has been filed, and no excuse has been offered for the failure to so file, and by authority of Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pac. 838, the plaintiffs in error have waived then-right to have the appeal heard in this court, and the same is hereby dismissed.
See, also, LeBreton v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 Pac. 323; Walker v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 152, 103 Pac. 585.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
All the Justices concur.