
    HARVEY v. LEWIS. In re ESCROW FUNDS.
    Appeal and Error — Briefs—Appendix—Court Rules.
    Appeal is ordered dismissed where brief and appendix do not comply with court rules on second opportunity afforded appellants to make such compliance (Court Rules No 67, §§ 1, 2, 6; No 70, § 5 [b] [1945]).
    Appeal from "Wayne; Rashid (Joseph Gr.), J.
    Record on appeal refiled July 1, 1961.
    (October Docket No. 26, Calendar No. 48,785.)
    Appeal dismissed October 5, 1961.
    Bill of Sidney M. Harvey, Thermie Henkle, William T. McAlonan, Emma Moist, and others against Daniel L. Lewis, et al., doing business as Lewis Bros., Brookdale Cemetery Association, Brookdale, Inc., Mt. Sinai Memorial Cemetery Association, and others, for accounting, receivership proceedings, quieting of title, cancellation of encumbrances, impressment of trust, and for other relief in connection with corporate organization and sales of property for cemetery purposes.
    Objection by plaintiffs to release of certain escrow funds held by Irwin I. Cohn to John R. Starrs, receiver of Brookdale Cemetery Association. Plaintiffs appeal.
    References i?or Points in Headnotes
    3 Am Jur, Appeal and Error § 768 et seq.
    
    
      Plaintiffs’ briefs and appendix stricken and appeal dismissed.
    
      Walter M. Nelson (Burger & Sullivan and Frank lanelli, of counsel for Harvey and McAlonan, Clarence T. Wilson, of counsel for Henkle, Moist and others), for plaintiffs.
    
      Stanley E. Beattie (John R. Starrs, in propria persona, of counsel), for John R. Starrs, receiver.
   Per Curiam.

On May 2,1961, this Court, in considering the above-styled case, entered the following order:

“On motion of the Court, the briefs and appendices of plaintiffs-appellants Harvey, et al., in the above-styled matters are stricken for gross violations of Court Rule No 67 (particularly sections 1, 2 and 6 thereof). Further, under authority of Court Rule No 70 §5(b)* the appeals of plaintiffs-appellants Harvey, et al., will be dismissed 60 days from date unless by then appellants have filed briefs and appendices complying with appellate rules.”

Examination of the brief and appendix subsequently submitted by appellants in calendar cause No. 48,785 convinces this Court that no substantial effort at compliance with the above order has been made. As a consequence, in accordance with the said order, appellants’ brief and appendix in the case described above are stricken and the appeal is dismissed.

Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Kelly, Talbot Smith, Black, Edwards, Kavanagh, and Souris, JJ., concurred. 
      
       Court Rules:(1945) were amended and certain sections added, October 30, 1956, effective January 2, 1957. For Rule No 67 see 347 Mich xxii, and subsequent amendment effective July 1, 1959, at 355 Mich xiv. For Rule No 70, § 5(b), see 347 Mich xxx.—Reporter.
     