MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al.

Annotate this Case

MAYO et al. v. MILLS et al.
1911 OK 508
119 P. 960
30 Okla. 539
Case Number: 1338
Decided: 12/12/1911
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

MAYO et al.
v.
MILLS et al.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR -- Dismissal -- Failure to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error fails to comply with rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 P. vi) of this court, requiring him to serve a brief on counsel for defendant in error within forty days after filing his petition in error, and at the same time to file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of this court, his case, on being reached for submission, will be dismissed. ( Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 P. 838).

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

Action in replevin by James M. Mayo and John R. Mayfield, of the firm of Mayo & Mayfield, against Thomas Mills and Lucy Mills. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Appeal dismissed.

Robert E. Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.
W. H. Brown, for defendants in error.

ROBERTSON, C.

¶1 The petition in error and case-made in this appeal were filed in this court on January 11, 1910. No brief, as required by rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 P. vi) of this court, has been filed, and no excuse has been offered for the failure to so file, and by authority of Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 P. 838, the plaintiffs in error have waived their right to have the appeal heard in this court, and the same is hereby dismissed.

See, also, LeBreton v. Swartzel, 14 Okla. 521, 78 P. 323; Walker v. Hannewincle, 24 Okla. 152, 103 P. 585.

¶2 By the Court: It is so ordered.

¶3 All the Justices concur.