
    NICHOLS & SHEPARD CO. v. DUNNINGTON, Adm’r.
    No. 15191
    Opinion Filed June 8, 1926.
    Appeal and Error—Failure lo File Brief— Dismissal.
    “Where a cause has been regularly as: signed for submission and the plaintiff in error fails to file brief, or offer any excuse for such failure, it will he presumed that the appeal has been abandoned, and the same will be dismissed.” Corbin v. Sharrock, 92 Okla. 194, 218 Pac. 798.
    (Syllabus by Dickson, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4.
    Error from District Court, Alfalfa County ; .1. C. Robberts, Judge.
    Action by Nichols & Shepard Company, against Carl S. Dunnington, administrator of the estate of Roy Messick, deceased. From judgment dismissing said action, plaintiff has appealed.
    Dismissed.
    Schwinn, Taggart & Bradley and Titus & Talbot, for plaintiff in error.
    Note.—See under (1) 3 O. J. p. 1444 §1607; 4 C. J. p. 571 §238'!
   Opinion by

DICKSON, C.

The plaintiff in error filed a motion in the matter of the estate of Roy Messick. deceased, in the county court of Alfalfal county, praying that the proceedings in said matter he abated. This motion was overruled, and an appeal was prosecuted to the district court of Alfalfa county. The district court dismissed the appeal, and the plaintiff in error has duly appealed to this court by petition in error and case-made attached. The record was filed in this court on March 14, 1924, and duly assigned for consideration. Plaintiff in error has filed no brief in this case, as required by rule 7 of this court, and Jailed to give any excuse for such failure. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  