
    HORNADAY et al. v. BANK OF COMMERCE OF SAPULPA et al.
    No. 9768
    Opinion Filed Oct. 12, 1920.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Appeal and Error — Failure to File Briefs— Dismissal.
    Where cause was submitted in regular order, and plaintiff in error was given extended time in which to file briefs, and no briefs were filed, and no further extension of time reouested, cause will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
    Error from District Coixrt, Murray County; F; B. Swank, Judge.
    Action between W. E. Hornaday and others and the Bank of Commerce of Sapulpa and another. From the judgment, the former bring error.
    Dismissed.
    H. A. Ledbetter, H. M. Carr, and A. L. Beckett, for plaintiffs in error.
    Broadbent & Rawlings and McClure & Casteel, for defendants in error.
   RAINEY, C. J.

This cause was submitted in its regular order on June 8, 1920, and plaintiffs in error given 30 days from that date to file briefs. On July 13, 1920, plaintiffs in error were given 60 days’ additional time to file briefs as per a stipulation filed July 6, 1920, This time having expired, and • no briefs having been filed, nor further extension of time requested, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Blanlot v. Carbon Coal Co., 76 Okla. 16, 183 Pac. 880; Balch v. Pickard, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 10; Sequoyah Club v. Ward, 71 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 747; Cantwell et al. v. Patterson et al., 71 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 755; Guarantee State Bank v. Turner, 66 Oklahoma, 168 Pac. 790.

All the Justices concur.  