BROWN v. EDDINGS

BROWN v. EDDINGS
1922 OK 345
210 P. 1021
88 Okla. 30
Case Number: 10666
Decided: 12/12/1922
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BROWN
v.
EDDINGS.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Failure to File Brief--Reversal.
It is well settled that where the plaintiff in error has filed a complete record in the Supreme Court and has served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of the court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, the Supreme Court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; and, where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears to reasonably sustain his assignments of error, the court may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition of the plaintiff in error.

Error from District Court, Cotton County; Cham Jones, Judge.

Action between W. G. Brown and C. M. Eddings. From the judgment, the former brings error. Reversed and remanded.

S. I. McElhoes, for plaintiff in error.
Guy Green and Morris & Wells, for defendants in error.

KANE, J.

¶1 In this proceeding in error, counsel for plaintiff in error filed a brief which appears to reasonably sustain his assignments of error. The defendant in error has filed no brief, and has not offered any excuse for failure to do so.

¶2 It is well settled that where the plaintiff in error has filed a complete record in the Supreme Court and has served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of the court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, the Supreme Court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; and, where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears to reasonably sustain his assignments of error, the court may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition of the plaintiff in error. Investors' Mortgage Security Co. v. Bilby, 78 Okla. 146, 189 P. 190; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 80 Okla. 187, 195 P. 494; One Certain Hupmobile v. State, 81 Okla. 73, 196 P. 675; Chicago. R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Runkles, 81 Okla. 106, 197 P. 153; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159, 197 P. 167; Stinchcomb v. Oklahoma City, 81 Okla. 102, 197 P. 437; Harrison v. M. Koehler Co., 82 Okla. 26, 198 P. 295; Obialero v. Henryetta Spelter Co., 82 Okla. 274, 200 P. 143; Russell & Washington v. Robertson, 82 Okla. 283, 200 P. 150; Incorporated Town of Kusa v. Bouggous, 82 Okla. 204, 200 P. 154.

¶3 For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.