Case ID: okla_161/html/0262-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROWN et al. v. GIBLET et al.
    No. 21879.
    Opinion Filed Jan. 24, 1933.
    Brett & Sadler, for plaintiffs in error.
    Morris & Taut, for defendants in error.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, filed their petition seeking $2,-500' damages. The trial court found against them, and on the 3rd day of November, 1930, plaintiffs perfected their appeal to this court.

Plaintiffs in error, in due time, served and filed their brief in compliance with the rules, of this court, but the defendants in. error have wholly failed to file any brief, pleading, or any (other instrument in said1 cause on appeal, nor have they offered any excuse for their failure to do so. Under this condition of the case, this court is not required to1 search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the plaintiff in error files brief and cites authorities therein which reasonably support and sustain the assignments of error, reverse the judgment of the lower court in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 P. 34; City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 P. 481.

We find (upon examination, of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error, they reasonably support the contention of plaintiff, and for the reasons stated the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the trial court ordered to vacate its former judgment .'and grant a new trial.

Note: See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.