Hill v. City of Kingfisher
Opinion
Opinion by
This appeal was filed in this court October 14, 1911. Neither party has filed a brief, nor have they offered any excuse for the failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The appeal should therefore be dismissed for want of prosecution tinder rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 95 Pac. vi). Streeter v. McCoy, 34 Okla. 490, 126 Pac. 216; Thompson v. Murray, 34 Okla. 521, 125 Pac. 1133; Streeter v. Huene, 34 Okla. 491, 126 Pac. 216; Reliable Ins. Co. v. Newcomber, 34 Okla. 759, 127 Pac. 260; M., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 34 Okla. 816, 127 Pac. 386; First Nat. Bank v. Baldwin, 34 Okla. 825, 127 Pac. 260; Snow v. Frye, 34 Okla. 826, 127 Pac. 422.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1913 OK 656 (Hill v. City of Kingfisher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.