
    BATES et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 9537.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 25, 1925.
    Reinstated and Dismissed May 5, 1926.)
    1. Bail <®=»94 — Appeal bond, conditioned to perform judgment of “Supreme Court or Court of Civil Appeals,” on appeal from judgment forfeiting bail bond, held insufficient to give jurisdiction to Court of Criminal Appeals.
    On appeal from, judgment forfeiting bail bond, an appeal bond reciting that appellants “shall prosecute their appeal with effect, and, in case judgment of Supreme Court or Court of Civil. Appeals shall be against them, they shall perform its judgment, sentence, and decrees,” etc., held insufficient to confer jurisdiction on Court of Criminal Appeals, hnd appeal will be dismissed.
    2. Bail &wkey;>94 — Rules of briefing in civil cases govern on appeal from judgment forfeiting bail bond.
    On appeal from judgment forfeiting bail bond, case must be briefed in accordance with rules governing civil cases.
    3. Bail <&wkey;94 — On dismissal of appeal from judgment, forfeiting bail bon'd for defective appeal bond, appeal can be prosecuted on tiling proper bond.
    Where, on appeal from forfeiture of a bail bond, appeal is dismissed for defect in appeal bond, appellants may still prosecute -appeal by filing proper bond.
    On Reinstatement for Further Consideration.
    4.Bail t&wkey;94 — Failure of parties, appealing from final judgment upon forfeiture of bail bond, to file briefs, or to brief case, as required in civil cases, requires dismissal of appeal.
    Appeal from judgm'ent forfeiting bail bond, being governed by rules applicable to civil matters-, must be dismissed, where record fails to show briefs were filed in trial court as required in civil cases, and where not briefed as required in civil cases.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Falls County; Prentice Oltorf, Judge.
    Proceeding by the State to forfeit a bail bond against Lee Bates and another. From a judgment forfeiting the bond, defendants appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Harper, Sturgeon & Lewis, of Dallas, for appellants. .
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAI-CER, J.

This is an appeal by the appellants from a final judgment of the district court of Falls county on a forfeiture of a bail bond. The appeal bond in this case is conditioned that the appellants “shall prosecute their appeal with effect, and, in case the judgment of the Supreme Court or the Court of' Civil Appeals shall be against them, tliey shall perform its judgment, sentence, and decrees,” etc. This -bond is wholly insufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal, and for that reason the appeal will have to he dismissed. Anderson et al. v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 67, 166 S. W. 1164.

It might be proper at this time to call the attention of the appellants’ attorneys to the fact that this case is not briefed in accordance with the rules governing civil eases, which are binding on this court in cases of this kind. Branch Ann. Penal Code, §§ 608 and 609.

The appellants are hereby granted 15 days in which to prepare and file a proper bond in this case; otherwise this order will be made final.

For the reason above stated, the appeal is dismissed.

On Reinstatement for Further Consideration.

On November 25, 1925, this case was dismissed on account of a defective appeal bond, which has since been supplied, and the case is now reinstated and before us for further consideration.

In the order dismissing this case, we called the attention of appellants’ pounsel to' the fact that same had not been briefed in accordance with the rules governing civil cases. Notwithstanding this fact, there has been no effort to show that the record, as presented, in so far as it relates to hriefing, does not reflect the true status of the record as made. There is nothing in the record to show that any brief, or copies of the brief, were filed in the trial court within the time and in keeping with the requirements of the rules pertaining to civil cases, nor is it briefed in this court in keeping with the rules applicable to civil cases. We are therefore, on this account, without authority of law to pass upon the merits of the case. Swim v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 576, 218 S. W. 761 ; Davis v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 313, 226 S. W. 409; Grammer v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 187, 230 S. W. 165; Wimberly v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 652, 271 S. W. 60S; Walker et al. v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 176, 272 S. W. 462.

For the reasons above mentioned, and under the authorities above cited, this appeal is ordered dismissed.

PEE CURIAM. The foregoing opinion by the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      «S^jPor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     