Wallingford v. Wood

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Wallingford v. Wood, 139 P. 252 (Okla. 1914)
41 Okla. 572; 1914 OK 101; 1914 Okla. LEXIS 183
Rittenhouse

Wallingford v. Wood

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

This appeal was filed in this court January 2, 1912. Neither party has filed a brief, nor have the)'- offered any excuse for the failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The appeal should therefore be dismissed for want, of prosecution under rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi). Streeter v. McCoy, 34 *573 Okla. 490, 136 Pac. 216; Thompson v. Murray, 34 Okla. 521, 135 Pac. 1133; Streeter v. Huene, 34 Okla. 491, 126 Pac. 216; Reliable Ins. Co. v. Newcomber, 34 Okla. 759, 127 Pac. 260; M., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 34 Okla. 816, 137 Pac. 386; First Nat. Bank v. Baldwin, 34 Okla. 825, 127 Pac. 260; Snow v. Frye, 34 Okla. 836, 137 Pac. 422.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Reference

Full Case Name
WALLINGFORD v. WOOD Et Al.
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Brief. Where plaintiff in error has filed no brief, as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Olcla. vi), the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Syllabus by Rittenhouse, C.)