Case ID: okla_92/html/0106-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MAXEY, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ADAMS v. BUTLER.
    No. 11682
    Opinion Filed Sept. 18, 1923.
    Appeal and Error — Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief.
    When the defendant in error chooses not to aid this court with a brief, and the brief of the piaintiff in error appears reasonably to support the assignments of error, this court will not search the records with a view of ascertaining some possible theory on which the’ judgment may be affirmed.
    (Syllabus by Maxey, C.)
    Comissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1.
    Error from District Court, Logan County; Arthur B. Swank, Judge.
    Action by A. D. Adams and against Thomas H. Butler, Jr., to recover on promissory note. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
    Beversed and remanded.
    H. M. Adams, for plaintiff in error.
   Opinion by

MAXEY, C.

The petition in error in this case was filed on August 31, 1920, and the briefs of the plaintiff in error were filed on June 28, 1923. There have been no briefs filed by defendant in error, although more than 60 days have expired since brief of plaintiff in error was served.

We, therefore, apply the rule of this court that:

•‘Where the brief of the plaintiff in error reasonably tends to support the assignments of error,, the court will not search the record to ascertain some possible theory on which the case may be affirmed, but if the assignments of error appear to be reasonably supported by the record, the case will be reversed.” Shapleigh Hdw. Co. v. Pritchard, 25 Okla. 808, 108 Pac. 360: School Dist. No. 30, Pottawatomie County, v. Shelton, 26 Okla. 229, 109 Pac. 67; Butler v. Stinson, 26 Okla. 216, 108 Pac. 1103.

There are numerous errors assigned and a number of them appear to be well taken, but in view of the fact that the case is not argued by defendant in error, we will not go into the record and hunt up some reason to sustain the judgment of the trial court, but following a long line of cases from this court we will reverse the case on authority of the following eases: Depenbrink v. Murphy, 54 Okla. 572, 154 Pac. 529; Stitch v. Daneiger Bros., 54 Okla. 640, 154 Pac. 514; Austin v. Campbell, 54 Okla. 671, 154 Pac. 514; McClure v. Ingram, 54 Okla. 741, 154 Pac. 575; Butte v. Routh, 56 Okla. 320, 169 Pac. 891; Olentine v. Backbone, 64 Okla. 164, 166 Pac. 127; Langley v. Weaver, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 530; Harrison v. M. Koehler Co., 82 Okla. 26, 198 Pac. 295: Town of Kusa v. Bouggous, 82 Okla. 204, 200 Pac. 154.

Counsel must remember when they have cases pending in this court that they must give them attention, or they will be dismissed. This case is reversed and remanded to the lower court, with directions to grant a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.