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. 787. 195 P. 494; One Certain Hupmobile v. State, 81 Okla. 73, 196 P. 675; Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. 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; W.G. Brown v. C.M. Eddings, 88 Okla. 30, 210 P. 1021; James Goff v. W.J. Lathan, 89 Okla. 242, 214 P. 1067. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.
This court in a number of decisions has held that when plaintiff in error has completed his record and filed it 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 ground upon which the judgment below may be sustained; and when the brief filed reasonably appears to sustain the assignment of error, the court may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error. Loveland v. Tant, 75 Okla. 12, 181 P. 302; General Bonding Casualty Ins. Co. v. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co., 75 Okla. 55, 181 P. 303; Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Lewis et al., 80 Okla. 187, 195 P. 694; Chicago, R.I. P. R. Co. v. Runkels, 81 Okla. 106, 197 P. 153. For reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
It has become a settled rule of this court that where plaintiff in error has filed a complete record herein and has filed and served brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has filed no brief, nor offered any excuse for failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment properly may be sustained, and where the brief filed by plaintiff in error appears to reasonably sustain his assignments of error, this court may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of petition in error. This rule has been followed in the following cases: Investors' Mtg. Security Co. v. Bilby, 78 Okla. 146, 189 P. 190; Mass. Bonding Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 80 Okla. 187, 195 P. 494; One Certain Hupmobile v. State, 81 Okla. 73, 196 P. 675; C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Runkles, 81 Okla. 106, 197 P. 153; Lawton Nat. 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; W.G. Brown v. C.M. Eddings, 88 Okla. 30, 210 P. 1021; also Jas. Goff v. W.J. Lathan, 89 Okla. 242, 214 P. 1067. In the latter case, by Mr. Justice Kane, the syllabus is as follows:
"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. 787, 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; W.G. Brown v. C.M. Eddings, 88 Okla. 30, 210 P. 1021. For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.
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. Investor's Mortgage Security Co. v. Bilby, 78 Okla. 146, 189 P. 190; Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 80 Okla. 787, 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; Stinchcomo v. Oklahoma City, 81 Okla. 102, 197 P. 437; Harrison v. M. Koehler Co., 82 Okla. 274, 200 P. 143; Russell Washington v. Robertson, 82 Okla. 283, 200 Pac, 150; Incorporated Town of Kusa v. Bouggous, 82 Okla. 204, 200 P. 154. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.
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. 787, 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. For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.