
    SNOW et al. v. FRYE et al.
    
    No. 2231.
    Opinion Filed October 15, 1912.
    (127 Pac. 422.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Briefs — Dismissal. Where plaintiff in error has filed no brief, as required by rule 7 of this court (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi), the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
    (Syllabus by Robertson, 0.)
    
      Error from District Court, Sequoyah County; *John H. Pitchford, Judge.
    
    Action by Ruth Snow and Daniel Snow against Charles C. Frye and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
    Dismissed.
    
      Robert E. Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Curtis & Moore, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

ROBERTSON, C.

This appeal was filed January 3, 1911. Plaintiffs in error have filed no brief, nor has any excuse been offered for their failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissd for want of prosecution under rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi) of this court. Hass v. McCampbell, 27 Okla. 290, 111 Pac. 543; Maddin v. McCormick, 27 Okla. 779, 117 Pac. 200; Bender v. Bender et al., 30 Okla. 288, 119 Pac. 205; Cox v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 296, 119 Pac. 205; McClelland v. Witherall, 30 Okla. 287, 119 Pac. 205.

By the Court: It is so ordered. •  