
    BALL v. HALL et al.
    No. 8129
    Opinion Filed Oct. 10, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 3916,
    (161 Pac. 778.)
    Appeal and Error — Briefs—Specifications of Error — Dismissal.
    Where plaintiff in error fails to comply with rule 25 of this court (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viii), in that his brief contains no specifications of error relied on for reversal of the cause, as required by said rule 25, the cause may he dismissed.
    (Syllabus by Edwards, C.)
    Error from District Court, Logan County; A. H. Huston, Judge.
    Action by Milo E. Ball against Mora E. Hall and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    Dismissed.
    John A. Remy, for plaintiff in error.
    John J. Hildreth, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

EDWARDS, C.

This cause was begun in the justice court of Logan county, and from a judgment in favor of defendants in error was appealed to the district court of Logan county, where a trial was had, and from a judgment in favor of the defendants in error an appeal was prosecuted to this court.

Plaintiff in error fails to set out in his brief the specifications of error complained of, separately set forth and numbered, as required by rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 95 Pac. viiil. Plaintiff in error argues certain propositions of law in his brief, but no specifications of error as required by the foregoing rule are made, and this court has repeatedly held that, where such rule has not been complied with by plaintiff in error, the appeal will be dismissed. Eikler v. Badger, 25 Okla. 853, 108 Pac. 359; Mahaney v. Union Inv. Co., 23 Okla. 533, 101 Pac. 1054; Arkansas Valley Nat. Bk. v. Clark, 31 Okla. 413, 122 Pac. 135; Reynolds v. Phipps, 31 Okla. 788, 123 Pac. 1125; Lawless v. Pitchford, 33 Okla. 633, 126 Pac. 782; Indian Land & Trust Co. et al. v Widner, 35 Okla. 652, 130 Pac. 551; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Overstreet, 38 Okla. 170, 132 Pac. 480; Carver v. Kenyon, 40 Okla. 232, 135 Pac. 1050.

The appeal is dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  