
    SMITH et al. v. WHARTON.
    No. 5794.
    Opinion Filed September 14, 1915.
    (151 Pac. 852.)
    1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Failure to File Brief — Discretion. Under the provisions of ¡rule 7 (88 Okla. vi, 187 Pac. ix), in case the plaintiff in error fails to file briefs in this court, as required therein, the court may continue the cause, dismiss, or affirm the judgment, in its discretion.
    2. SAME — Affirmance. Where the plaintiff in error does not file any brief, and- an examination of the record shows that the judgment of the lower court is probably right, it will be affirmed.
    (Syllabus by Devereux, O.)
    
      Error from District Court, Muskogee County; R. P. de Gruffenreid, Judge.
    
    Action by Joe Smith and others against Maud Smith Wharton. Judgment for defendant', and plaintiffs bring error.-
    Affirmed.
    
      Robertson & Kean, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Brook & Brook, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

DEVEREUX, C.

This cause was docketed in this court on October 16, Í913, and was regularly submitted on September 13, 1915, but no brief has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, and no extension of time asked for, and no excuse given for such failure. Rule 7 of this court, providing for the filing and • service of briefs, contains the provision that, in case of failure to comply with the requirements of the . rule, this court may continue the cause, or reverse or affirm the judgment, in its discretion. In order that we might intelligently exercise this discretion thus given us, we have carefully considered the case-made, and proceedings of the trial court sought to be reviewed, and can discover no prejudicial error therein.

We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  