From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crone v. Duncan

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jan 7, 1913
129 P. 711 (Okla. 1913)

Opinion

No. 2484

Opinion Filed January 7, 1913.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal — Failure to File Briefs. A cause having been duly assigned for hearing, and being reached on the calendar in due course, no briefs having been filed as required by rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi), the same will be dismissed.

(Syllabus by Sharp, C.)

Error from Superior Court, Oklahoma County; A. N. Munden, Judge.

Action by Walter F. Duncan and Lela Duncan, doing business under the firm name and style of the Duncan Millinery Company, against P. M. Crone. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $500, defendant brings error. Dismissed.

Burwell, Crockett Johnson, for defendants in error.


The petition in error, with case-made attached, was filed in this court April 3, 1911. The cause was duly assigned for hearing at the December, 1912, term, and, being reached in due course on the calendar, it appears that no briefs have been filed as required by rule 7 of this court (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi).

It follows that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Crone v. Duncan

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jan 7, 1913
129 P. 711 (Okla. 1913)
Case details for

Crone v. Duncan

Case Details

Full title:CRONE v. DUNCAN et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Jan 7, 1913

Citations

129 P. 711 (Okla. 1913)
36 Okla. 517

Citing Cases

Waples-Painter Co. v. Board of Com'rs

Neither party has filed a brief, nor have they offered any excuse for the failure to do so. It is evidence…