Opinion
No. 24564.
February 4, 1936.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Reversal — Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief — Appeal by Protestants to Sufficiency of Initiative Petition.
Whore the protestants to the sufficiency of an initiative petition file their proceedings in this court and submit a brief which reasonably supports the allegations of the petition, and the proponents do not make any appearance herein or file their brief supporting the issues involved in their behalf, this court will examine the record, and where it reasonably supports the relief sought, the order sustaining the protest will be entered.
Appeal from Decision of City Clerk of El Reno.
Proceedings by Chas. H. Tompkins et al. to reverse the finding of the sufficiency of an initiative petition. Finding of sufficiency vacated.
J.N. Roberson, City Attorney, and Fogg Fogg, for protestants.
This is an appeal by the city of El Reno from the decision of the city clerk declaring the sufficiency of an initiative petition calling an election to change the number of commissioners of the city of El Reno.
Plaintiffs in error filed their petition in error on April 3, 1913, and on June 16, 1933, filed their brief in support of their protest. No brief has been filed by the proponents of the petition and no excuse offered for failure to file the same.
We have examined the record, the allegations of the petition in error, and the brief submitted by the protestants, and are of the opinion that the protest should be sustained.
The petition of the protestants is therefore sustained, with directions to the city clerk to vacate the order heretofore made and to enter an order sustaining the objections to the Initiative Petition No. 4 as prayed for in the petition in error.
McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, BUSBY, and PHELPS, JJ., concur.