Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DAVIS et al. v. VAUGHN et al.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal — Failure to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error has filed no brief, as required by rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Syllabus by Rittenhouse, C.)

RITTENHOUSE, C.

The petition in error and the transcript of the record in the case was filed in this court on September 30, 1912, Neither party has filed a brief, nor have they offered any excuse for the failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned.

The petition in error should therefore be dismissed for want of prosecution, under rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix). Nicholson v. Barnes, 42 Okla. 250, 140 P. 1155.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DAVIS ET AL. v. VAUGHN ET AL
(Apr 27, 1915)