Opinion
No. 20437
Opinion Filed October 20, 1931.
(Syllabus.)
1. Appeal and Error — Review of Sufficiency of Evidence — Failure of Plaintiff in Error's Brief to Contain Abstract of Evidence.
In causes appealed to the Supreme Court wherein it is asked that the action of the trial court be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence and for alleged errors by the trial court for wrongful findings from the evidence, it is necessary for the appellant to comply with the requirements of Rule No. 26 of the Supreme Court in preparation of briefs; otherwise the assignment, not so supported, may, in the discretion of the court, be ignored.
2. Same — Sufficiency of Evidence as Shown by Abstract in Brief of Defendants in Error.
Where the abstract of the evidence contained in the brief of the defendants in error reasonably supports the judgment of the trial court and the plaintiff in error has failed to include an abstract of the evidence in his brief, and where the plaintiff in error relies for a reversal of the judgment of the trial court on the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, this court will not search the record of the evidence, but will consider the abstract thereof contained in the brief of the defendants in error as correct and sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court.
3. Same — Evidence Held to Support Judgment.
Record examined, and held to support the judgment of the trial court.
Appeal from District Court, Comanche County; E.L. Richardson, Judge.
Action by O.F. Reynolds against Joe Jackson and R.F. Smith, cross-petitioner. From the judgment, defendant Jackson appeals. Affirmed.
Harry C. Hicks, for plaintiff in error.
W. Swift and Ray Thomas, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Comanche county, Okla., in favor of the defendants in error, plaintiff and cross-petitioner in the trial court, against the plaintiff in error, defendant in the trial court. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
The defendant herein contends "that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence" and that the judgment is "contrary to law in that there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that Joe Jackson was one of the partners, though that point was denied by plaintiff in error, neither was there any evidence to show that he was to have received any of the profits or benefits from the partnership."
The defendant has failed to abstract the evidence as required by Rule 26 of this court. Since the attack on the judgment of the trial court is limited to the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment, Rule 26 is applicable and should have been complied with. The plaintiff and cross-petitioner have abstracted the evidence, and an examination of their brief shows that there is ample evidence abstracted therein to support the judgment of the trial court under the rule followed by this court that in a law action a judgment will not be disturbed if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the same.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and SWINDALL, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. RILEY, HEFNER, and CULLISON, JJ., absent.