CITY OF TULSA v. COCKRELL

CITY OF TULSA v. COCKRELL
1945 OK 191
159 P.2d 711
195 Okla. 518
Case Number: 31473
Decided: 06/12/1945
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CITY OF TULSA
v.
COCKRELL

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Failure of defendant in error to file brief - Reversal.
Where plaintiff in error has served and filed brief, but the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Prentiss E. Rowe, Judge.

Action by L. L. Cockrell against the City of Tulsa, to recover on a claim. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

E. M. Gallaher, L. A. Justus, Philip J. Kramer, and C. Lawrence Elder, all of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Remington Rogers, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Plaintiff in error has appealed from a judgment entered against it in the trial court, and on August 11, 1943, filed its brief. The authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated in Gooldy v. Hines, 186 Okla. 583, 99 P.2d 498, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the cause may be reversed and remanded, with directions.

¶2 The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the judgment entered for the defendant in error and to enter judgment for the plaintiff in error.

¶3GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.