
    MOORE v. ADAMS.
    No. 3477.
    Opinion Filed November 4, 1913.
    (136 Pac. 410.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Brief—Sufficiency. Where the brief of plaintiff in error fails to contain an abstract statement of the facts, and such other matters required by rule 25 of this court (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viii), the judgment of the trial court having been superseded, a motion to affirm the judgment will be sustained.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from County Court, Harmon County;
    
    
      C. W. King, Judge.
    
    Action by W. N. Adams against A. A. Moore. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Madden & Fowler, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. M. Stewart and Gray & McVey, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause comes on to be heard on motion of defendant in error to affirm the judgment of the trial court. There judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error for a certain sum, whereupon he superseded the same and commenced proceeding in error in this court. As counsel for plaintiff in error has not complied with that part of our rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viii) which requires:

“The brief of the plaintiff in error in all cases except felonies shall contain an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in this court”

—the judgment of the court below is affirmed. Berry v. Woodward et al., 38 Okla. 468, 133 Pac. 1127; McKain v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 35 Okla. 164, 128 Pac. 895; Merchants’ & Planters’ Ins. Co. v. Crane et al., 31 Okla. 713, 123 Pac. 1126.  