Case ID: okla_89/html/0036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KENNAMER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM & GASOLINE CO. v. CUNO.
    No. 11007
    Opinion Filed March 13, 1923.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Review—Briefs.
    Where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed a brief as required by the rules of this court,, and (here is no brief filed and no reason given for its absence on the part of defendant in error, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may he sustained: but. where the brief filed appears reasonably io sustain the assignments of error, the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error. Frost v. Haley, 63 Okla. 19, 161 Pae. 1174.
    Error from District Court, Creek County; Lueien B. Wright, Judge.
    Action by J. Cuno against the Oklahoma Petroleum & Gasoline Company, a corporation, to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Judgment for plaintiff for $10,000, and defendant brings error.
    Reversed and remanded, with directions.
    William F. Tucker and Hulette F. Aby, for plaintiff in error.
    R. B. Thompson, Jas. F. Greason, and Fay T. Chew, for defendant in error.
   KENNAMER, J.

This appeal is prosecuted by Oklahoma Petroleum & Gasolinp Company, a corporation, to rever-'e the judgment ' of the district eonrt of Creek county entered upon a verdict of the jury awarding J. Cuno $10,000 damages for an alleged malicious prosecution instituted against J. Cuno for grand larceny. J. Cuno appears here as defendant in error.

The brief of the plaintiff in error was served on the 17th day of November, 1922. No brief has been filed by the defendant in error, nor any excuse given for failure to file same. It is a' well-established rule of this court that it is not required to search -the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may he sustained ; hut, where the brief filed by th'e plaintiff in error reasonably sustains the assignments of error, the judgment will be reversed in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error. Frost v. Haley, 63 Okla. 19, 161 Pac. 1174: Security Ins. Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 430; J. Rosenbaum Grain Co. v. Higgins, 40 Okla. 181, 136 Pac. 1073; Purcell Bridge & Transfer Co. v. Hine, 40 Okla. 200, 137 Pac. 668; First Nat. Bank of Sallisaw v. Ballard, 41 Okla. 553, 139 Pac. 293; De Hart Oil Co. v. Smith, 42 Okla. 201, 140 Pac. 1154.

Upon an examination of the brief of the plaintiff in error in this cause, it is our conclusion that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Creek county, with directions to grant the defendant a new trial in the action. It is so ordered.

JOHNSON, Y. C. J., and McNEILL, NICHOLSON, COCHRAN, and BRANSON, JJ., concur.