BUTTE et al. v. ROUTH et al.

BUTTE et al. v. ROUTH et al.
1917 OK 613
169 P. 891
66 Okla. 320
Case Number: 7965
Decided: 12/11/1917
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BUTTE et al.
v.
ROUTH et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Briefs--Reversal.
When the plaintiff in error has duly filed and served brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and defendant has neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure so to do, this court will not search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained; but where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain any assignment of prejudicial error, the judgment will be revers.

Error from District Court, Muskogee County; R. P. De Graffenried, Judge.

Action by Avery L. Routh against George C. Butte and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants George C. Butte and S. H. Lattimore bring error. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

George C. Butte and S. H. Lattimore, in pro tem.

STEWART, C.

¶1 Judgment was rendered in the district court of Muskogee county against George C. Butte, S. H. Lattimore, and Robert J. Boone in favor of Avery L. Routh as plaintiff. The defendants George C. Butte and S. H. Lattimore duly filed motion for new trial, which was overruled, with exceptions, and such defendants appeal to this court. On June 2, 1917, the plaintiff duly filed brief in this court setting forth the errors complained of, and argument in support thereof. The defendants in error Avery L. Routh and Robert J. Boone have neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure to do so. More than six months have elapsed since the filing of the brief by plaintiffs in error. It is a well-established rule of this court that where the defendant in error chooses not to aid the court with a brief, offering no excuse for such failure, and the brief of the plaintiff in error reasonably supports error properly assigned, the judgment complained of will be reversed. Nettograph Machine Co. v. Brown, 19 Okla. 77, 91 P. 849; Taby v. McMurray, 30 Okla. 602, 120 P. 664; Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 P. 170; Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469, 106 P. 957; Buckner v. Oklahoma Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 472 106 P. 959; Sharpleigh Hdw. Co. v. Pritchard, 25 Okla. 808, 108 P. 360; School Dist. v. Shelton, 26 Okla. 229, 109 P. 67, 138 Am. St. Rep. 962; Flanagan v. Davis, 27 Okla. 422, 112 P. 990; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456, 112 P. 991; Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 P. 371; Doyle v. School Dist., 30 Okla. 81, 118 P. 386; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 P. 570; Hawkins v. White, 31 Okla. 118, 120 P. 561; Rudd v. Wilson, 32 Okla. 85, 121 P. 252, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 485; Reynolds, Davis & Co. v. Hotchkiss, 31 Okla. 606, 122 P. 165; First Nat. Bank v. Blair, 31 Okla. 562, 122 P. 527; Van Arsdale-Osborne Brokerage Co. v. Patterson, 30 Okla. 113, 120 P. 933; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Haworth, 48 Okla. 132, 149 P. 1086; Eckes v. Luse et al., 48 Okla. 155, 149 P. 905. From an examination of the brief of plaintiffs in error, we find that the instant case comes within the rule announced.