
    VAN SMITH v. COLEMAN et al.
    
    No. 5468.
    Opinion Filed September 21, 1915.
    (151 Pac. 1018.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Brief — Decision. Where plaintiff in error fails to file briefs, as required by rule 7 (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), this court may continue the cause, dismiss the appeal, or affirm the judgment, in its discretion; and where, a motion to affirm is filed, no answer to which is made, and an examination of the record does not disclose any prejudicial error, the judgment will be affirmSed. •
    (Syllabus by Devereux, C.)
    
      Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    
    Action by Mary Coleman and another against H. Van Smith. From the judgment, Van Smith brings error.’
    Affirmed.
    
      Clark J. Tisdel, for plaintiff in error.
    
      S. E. Gidney, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

DEVEREUX,, C.

This cause was filed in this court on August 14, 1913, and was submitted on September 13, 1915. The plaintiff in error has filed no briefs, nor asked for any extension of time within which to do so, nor given any excuse for failure to comply with rule 7 (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix). The defendants in error have filed a motion, service of which was duly accepted by counsel for plaintiff in error, to affirm judgment. We have examined the record and case-made, and see no reason why the motion should not be granted.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  