Case ID: okla_98/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JARMAN, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAUN v. PACKARD OKLAHOMA MOTOR CO. et al.
    No. 12597 —
    Opinion Filed March 4, 1924.
    Appeal .and Error — Absence of Answer Brief — Reversal.
    Where the plaintiff in error has doly filed and served brief in compliance with the rule of the Supreme Court, and defendants have neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure so to do, the Supreme Court will not search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained; but, where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain any assignment of prejudicial error, the judgment will be reversed.
    (Syllabus by Jarman, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion,
    Division No. 2.
    Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Albert C. Hunt, Judge.
    Action by Carl B. Haun against the Packard Oklahoma Motor Company and the Federal Motor Company. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    Reversed and' remanded.
    H.B. Martin, Roy Reynolds and Robinett & Ford, for plaintiff in error.
   Opinion by

JARMAN, C.

This is an appeal from the district court of Tulsa county. The plaintiff in error filed his brief September 11, 1923. No. brief has been filed by the defendants in error and no extension of time has been given to file same and no reason ha.s been, assigned by the defendants in error as to why they have not filed brief. The brief of the plaintiff in error appears to reasonably sustain the assignments of error, and under the rule of this court, the record will not be searched to find some theory upon which the judgment of the lower court may be sustained.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to grant the plaintiff a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.