From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Snow v. Frye

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Oct 15, 1912
127 P. 422 (Okla. 1912)

Opinion

No. 2231

Opinion Filed October 15, 1912.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Briefs — Dismissal. Where plaintiff in error has filed 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 Robertson, C.)

Error from District Court, Sequoyah County; John H. Pitchford, Judge.

Action by Ruth Snow and Daniel Snow against Charles C. Frye and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Dismissed.

Robert E. Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.

Curtis Moore, for defendants in error.


This appeal was filed January 3, 1911. Plaintiffs in error have filed no brief, nor has any excuse been offered for their failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissd for want of prosecution under rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi) of this court. Hass v. McCampbell, 27 Okla. 290, 111 P. 543; Maddin v. McCormick, 27 Okla. 779, 117 P. 200; Bender v. Bender et al., 30 Okla. 288, 119 P. 205; Cox v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 296, 119 P. 205; McClelland v. Witherall, 30 Okla. 287, 119 P. 205.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Snow v. Frye

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Oct 15, 1912
127 P. 422 (Okla. 1912)
Case details for

Snow v. Frye

Case Details

Full title:SNOW et al. v. FRYE et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Oct 15, 1912

Citations

127 P. 422 (Okla. 1912)
127 P. 422

Citing Cases

Wallingford v. Wood

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

Turner Hardware Co. v. John Deere Plow Co.

In any event, it should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Streeter v. McCoy, 34 Okla. 490, 126 P. 216;…