
    LOBELL v. STOCK OIL COMPANY.
    (No. 729.)
    Appeal and Error — Briefs—Failure to File — Dismissal.
    1. Where, without presenting any excuse therefor, plaintiff in error has' failed to file briefs, and no extension of time therefor was applied for or granted, a motion to dismiss for that reason must be granted.
    [Decided May 24, 1913.]
    (132 Pac. 433.)
    Error to the District Court, Natrona County, Hon. David H. Craig, judge.
    
      William H. Marts, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Norton & Hagens, for defendant in error.
   Pbr Curiam.

The petition in error in this case was filed August 28, 1912. No brief on behalf of plaintiff in error was ever filed as required by Rule 15 of this court, nor was any extension of time therefor applied for or granted. March 7, 1913, defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings in error for the failure of plaintiff in error to file briefs as required by said rule. It is provided by Rule 21, (104 Pac. XIV.) : “When the plaintiff in error or party holding the affirmative has failed to file and serve his brief as required by these rules, the defendant in error or party holding the negative may have the cause dismissed, or may submit it, with or withouf oral argument.” No excuse has been presented in this case for the failure to file briefs as required by the rule. The motion to dismiss will have to be granted and the cause dismissed, (Small v. Savings Bank, 16 Wyo. 126, 92 Pac. 289) and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.  