Case ID: okla_48/html/0245-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DUDLEY, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARTHAGE SUPERIOR MARBLE & LIMESTONE CO. v. HUGH McLENNAN & CO. et al.
    
    No. 4696.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1915.
    (149 Pac. 1074.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Reversal—Brief. Where plaintiff in error has completed his record and filed it in this court, and has served ■and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so,.this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained; and, where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the court may reverse the judgment in acordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error.
    (Syllabus by Dudley, O.)
    
      
      Error from Superior Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield, Judge.
    
    Action by the Carthage Superior Marble & Limestone Company, a corporation, against Hugh McLennan & Co., a corporation, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiif brings error.
    Reversed and remanded.,
    
      Embry & Hastings, for plaintiif in error.
   Opinion by

DUDLEY, C.

This is an appeal from the superior court of Oklahoma county. There was judgment for defendants in error, from which plaintiif in error has properíy perfected an appeal to this court. It has served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and defendants in error have neither filed a brief nor oifered any excuse for their failure to do so. We have examined the record, and the brief appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, and, under the numerous authorities of this court, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained, but may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiif in error. Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 Pac. 371.

The judgment is therefore reversed and remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.