67 A.2d 266 | D.C. | 1949
Appellant and her husband were defendants in an action for possession of real estate. By consent of the husband judgment was entered against him. . The wife contested the action and has appealed from judgment against her.
On April 9, after an extension -of time had -been granted, appellant -filed a paper entitled “Brief for Appellant.” On April 22 appellee -filed a motion stating he had received no copy -of appellant’s brief although he had learned from the Clerk of -Court that such brief had been filed on April 9. On April 28 appellant, replying to the -motion, stated that through inadvertence copy of the brief had not been mailed to appellee but that a copy would be furnished " him. Presumably this was done.
The “Brief for Appellant” sets forth twenty-two alleged errors occurring at trial, but contains no statement of the case with, references to the transcript of record and no argument in support of the claims of error as required by our Rule 35 (3) and (5). To even attempt to understand .the errors assigned would require -searching through the two hundred page transcript of record. The so-called brief is no brief at aid. It merely repeats the assignments of error already contained in the record.
Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal under our Rule 40(h) which provides: “When a case is reached on regular call and no -brief has -been filed for the appellant, the court at the instance -of the adverse party or on i-ts own motion may have the appellant called and case dismissed, or make -such other order as may be just.” When the -case was -reached on regular call on June 1 no otie appeared for appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
