HANCOCK v. LITTLE

HANCOCK v. LITTLE
1947 OK 292
185 P.2d 462
199 Okla. 256
Case Number: 32290
Decided: 10/14/1947
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR - Reversal - Failure of defendant in error to file brief.
Where plaintiffs in error have 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 Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; John T. Harley, Judge.

Action by M.L. Little, doing business as Turley Lumber Company, against R.L. Hancock and wife, on a contract. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

H.F. Fulling, of Tulsa, for plaintiffs. in error.

Joe W. Simpson, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Defendants have appealed from a judgment entered against them in the trial court, and on October 6, 1945, filed their brief. The authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The plaintiff has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated by this court in Durham v. Brown, 164 Okla. 139, 24 P.2d 295, it is not the duty of this court to search the record to find 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 the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for the plaintiff and to enter a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $582.82, said judgment to draw interest from the date of the entry thereof.

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