
    TWINE et al. v. MAEHL.
    No. 11983
    Opinion Filed Oct. 2, 1923.
    Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief— Dismissal.
    Where the plaintiff in error files no brief as required by Rule 7 of this court, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prose: cation. , , j'
    (Syllabus by Pinkham, O.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.
    Error from District Court, Muskogee County; Benjamin B. Wheeler, Judge.
    Action by Anna Maehl against Mittie A, Twine and Hillard DeGraffenried. Judgment rendered for Anna Maehl. Prom the judgment Mittie A. Twine and Hillard De-Graffenried bring error.
    Dismissed for want of prosecution.
    Disney, Wheeler & Barker, for plaintiffs in error.
    B. E. Nussbaum and Earl Bohannon, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

PINKHAM, C.

This is an appeal from the action of the district court of Muskogee county, Okla., in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant in error. The cause was duly reached for hearing upon the docket of this court, submit-, ted and assigned for the preparation of an opinion. Upon an examination of the record it appears that neither party has filed a brief in the case, although the time for so doing has long since expired.

In these circumstances the appeal of the plaintiffs in error must be dismissed for want of prosecution.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  