Title: MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al.
Citation: 119 P. 96 0, 1911 OK 508, 30 Okla. 539
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1911

MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al. Annotate this Case MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al. 1911 OK 508 119 P. 960 30 Okla. 539 Case Number: 1338 Decided: 12/12/1911 Supreme Court of Oklahoma MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al. Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR -- Dismissal -- Failure to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error fails to comply with rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 P. 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 P. 838). 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. Brown, for defendants in error. ROBERTSON, C. ¶1 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 P. 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 P. 838, the plaintiffs in error have waived their right to have the appeal heard in this court, and the same is hereby dismissed. See, also, LeBreton v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521 , 78 P. 323; Walker v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 152 , 103 P. 585. ¶2 By the Court: It is so ordered. ¶3 All the Justices concur.