
    EDWARDS v. HOLDER.
    (No. 1551.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
    Oct. 15, 1919.)
    Appeal and error <&wkey;773(2)~Failure to FILE STATEMENT OF FACTS NOT &ROUND FOR AFFIRMANCE.
    Failure to file statement of facts is not alone ground for affirmance; and, if the defendant in error desires to have an affirmance, it is necessary for him to file briefs in accordance with rule 42 for the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xiv), and where he fails to do so the court can only dismiss the writ of error for want of prosecution.
    Error from District Court, Deaf Smith County; Reese Tatum, Judge.
    Action between S. B. Edwards and S. W. Holder. To review judgment for the latter, the former brings error.
    Writ dismissed.
    Carl Gilliland, of Hereford, for plaintiff in error.
    Ben H. Stone, of Amarillo, for defendant in error.
   BOXCE, J.

No briefs are filed either by plaintiff in error or defendant in error. The defendant in error has filed a motion in which he calls our attention to the fact that no statement of facts has been filed, and for this reason prays that the judgment of the court be-i low be affirmed, and judgment entered on the supersedeas bond. The failqre to file a statement of facts is not alone ground for affirmance. If the defendant in error desired to have an affirmance of the case it was necessary for him to have filed briefs in accordance with the provisions of rule 42 (142 8. W. xiv)' for the Courts of Civil Appeals. Under the circumstances we can only dismiss the writ of error for want of prosecution. Suderman-Dolson v. Carson, 122 S. W. 401; American Warehouse Co. v. Hamblen, 146 S. W. 1006; Southwestern Oil & Gas Co. v. Denny, 187 S. W. 973; Arispe v. Clark, 199 S. W. 500. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER'in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     