Snow v. Frye

1912 OK 651, 127 P. 422, 34 Okla. 826, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 497
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided October 15, 1912·No. 2231·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

ROBERTSON, C.

This appeal was filed January 3, 1911. Plaintiffs in error have filed no brief, nor has any excuse been offered for their failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissd for want of prosecution under rule 7 (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi) of this court. Hass v. McCampbell, 27 Okla. 290, 111 Pac. 543; Maddin v. McCormick, 27 Okla. 779, 117 Pac. 200; Bender v. Bender et al., 30 Okla. 288, 119 Pac. 205; Cox v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 296, 119 Pac. 205; McClelland v. Witherall, 30 Okla. 287, 119 Pac. 205.

By the Court: It is so ordered. •

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Snow v. Frye, 1912 OK 651, 127 P. 422, 34 Okla. 826, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 497 (Okla. 1912).

1912 OK 651 (Snow v. Frye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Deible v. Union Iron Works
139 P. 252 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Hill v. City of Kingfisher
1913 OK 656 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Thompson v. Yount
1913 OK 673 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Turner Hardware Co. v. John Deere Plow Co.
1913 OK 641 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Newcomer v. Freeman
1913 OK 511 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Miller v. Williams
1913 OK 443 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)