From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McClelland v. Witherall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 18, 1911
119 P. 205 (Okla. 1911)

Opinion

No. 1211

Opinion Filed November 18, 1911.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal — Failure to File Briefs. Where plaintiff in error files no brief, as required by rule 7 of this court (20 Okla viii, 95 Pac. vi), the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Syllabus by Rosser, C.)

Error from District Court, Cherokee County; James I. Coursey, Special Judge.

Action by Daisy McClelland against R. A. Witherall. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

Bruce L. Keenan, for plaintiff in error.

Soper, Huckleberry Owen, for defendant in error.


The petition in error and transcript of the record was filed in this court November 11, A.D. 1909. The plaintiff in error has failed to file any brief in the case. The petition in error should therefore be dismissed, for want of prosecution. Hass v. McCampbell, 27 Okla. 290, 111 P. 543; Maddin v. McCormick et al., 27 Okla. 778, 117 P. 200, and cases there cited; Bender v. Bender et al., infra, 119 P. 205; Cox v. Rogers, infra, 119 P. 205.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

McClelland v. Witherall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 18, 1911
119 P. 205 (Okla. 1911)
Case details for

McClelland v. Witherall

Case Details

Full title:McCLELLAND v. WITHERALL

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Nov 18, 1911

Citations

119 P. 205 (Okla. 1911)
119 P. 205

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. Dolak

The petition in error should therefore be dismissed for want of prosecution. Hass et al. v. McCampbell, 27…

State v. Weatherford Milling Co.

The plaintiff in error has failed to file any brief in the cause, as required by rule 7 of this court (20…