
    THOMASON et al. v. CHAMPLIN.
    No. 4359.
    Opinion Filed May 11, 1915.
    (148 Pac. 991.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Brief — Dismissal. Where plaintiff in error has filed no briefs as required by rule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
    (Syllabus by Watts, C.)
    
      Error from District Court, Okfuskee County; John •Cat'uthers, Judge.
    
    Action by H. C. Champlin against Lee Thomason and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Dismissed
    See, also, 43 Okla. 86, 141 Pac. 411.
    
      Chas. L. Phillips and James M. Hays, for plaintiff in error. •
    
      C. T. Huddleston, for defendant in error.
   WATTS, C.

This action was commenced in the- district court of Okfuskee county on December 6, 1911, by H. C. Champ-lin, the defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the lower court, against Lee’ Thomason, Maud Thomason, Charles L. Phillips, and James M. Hayes, plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the lower court. It seems that the defendant in error filed his petition in the trial court, seeking to quiet title to certain lots situated in he town of Weleetka. Answer was filed, and in due course issues were joined, and judgment was rendered in fayor of defend;ant in error and against the plaintiffs in error. Case-made was filed in this court September 14, 1912. Summons in error was issued on the date last mentioned, and was served on defendant in error and returned and filed with the clerk of this court on ■September 18, 1912; but neither of the parties have filed briefs, and the ease having been submitted, and no application for exten■sion of time in which to file briefs having been filed, we recommend that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution under -Tule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla, vi, 137 Pac. ix).

By the Court: It is so ordered.  