
    TINKER et al. v. INKANISH et al.
    
    No. 5390.
    Opinion Filed September 28, 1915.
    (151 Pac. 1062.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Brief — Dismissal. Where plaintiff in error files no brief, andi assigns no reason for his failure to do so, the appeal will be considered as abandoned, and under rule 7 (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix) the appeal dismissed.
    (Syllabus by Brett, C.)
    
      Error from, District Court, Caddo County; J. T. Johnson, Judge.
    
    Action by Andy Tinker and another against James Inkanish and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
    Dismissed..
    
      C. H. Carswell, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      W. H. Starkweather, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

BRETT, C.

This is an action commenced in thé district court of Caddo county by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error. Judgment was rendéred for the defendants in this action, from which plaintiffs appeal. The appeal was filed in this court July 28, 1918, and was duly submitted upon the record September 13, 1915. The plaintiffs in error have filed no brief, and assigned no reason for their failure to do so, nor have they asked for additional time in which to file briefs. The appeal will therefore be considered as abandoned, and under rule 7 (38 .Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), we recommend’that the appeal be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  