
    VANSELOUS et al. v. McCLELLAN.
    No. 2389.
    Opinion Filed February 11, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied March 8, 1913.
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Briefs—Requisites—Dismissal. When plaintiff in error in his brief fails to comply with rule 25 (20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii) of this court, his appeal may be dismissed.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Kay County; W. M. Bowles, Judge.
    
    Action by John E. Hamilton against Thomas Vanselous and another. Erom judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.
    Dismissed.
    
      John S. Burger, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      D. S. Rose, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

On December 24,1907, defendant in error, John E. McClellan, sued Thomas Vanselous and James Hamilton, plaintiffs in error, in the district court oí Kay county, in ejectment for certain lots described in his petition. There was trial and judgment for plaintiff, and when a second trial which was granted resulted the same way, defendants bring the case here. But we cannot pass upon the merits of this cause, but must dismiss it. This for the reason that, owing to a failure of plaintiffs in error to comply with rule 25 (.20 Okla. xii, 95 Pac. viii) of this court and set forth in their brief a specification of errors complained of, we can only conjecture what is relied upon to reverse the case. Cause dismissed.  