
    Russell et al v. Deadwood Development Co. et al.
    
    Where no abstracts or briefs are filed, it will be presumed that there are no questions to be considered, and the appeal will be dismissed.
    (Opinion filed May 8, 1903.)
    Appeal from the circuit court, Lawrence county, Hon. Joseph B. Moore, Judge.
    Action by Michael R. Russell and others against the Deadwood Development Company and others. Prom a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      McLaughlin & McLaughlin, for appellants.
    
      Martin & Mason, for respondents.
   Puller, J.

Although this case was placed upon the April, 1902, calendar, and assigned for argument at that term, no abstracts or briefs have ever been filed. According to the settled practice of this court, it is presumed that there are no questions upon which a decision is desired. Benedict v. Smith 10 S. D. 35, 71 N. W. 139; Giles et al. v. Hawkeye Gold Mining Co. et al., 11 S. D. 222, 76 N. W. 928. In the absence of anything within our reach pertaining to the merits, the appeal is dismissed.  