Case ID: okla_124/html/0295-01.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

WILLIAMS v. SASEEN.
    No. 17728
    Opinion Filed May 3, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Reversal for Failure to File Answer Brief.
    The syllabus in the case of City National Bank v. Coatney ’et al., 122 Okla. 233, 253 Pae. 481, is hereby adopted as the syllabus in this case.
    Note. — See 3 C. J. p- 1447, §1607.
    Error from County Court, Washita County; H. C. Hubbard, Judge.
    Action between Henry Williams and E. M. Saseen. From order of the trial court dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action, plaintiff in error appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Ralph D. Smith and Robert Burns, for plaintiff in error.
    Bailey & Saseen, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the county court of Washita county, dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action. Plaintiff in error was plaintiff below.

Plaintiff in error in due time served and filed his brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief or-otherwise appear in this court upon the merits of this cause, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

“Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the 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 of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions, in accordance with the prayer 'of the petition in error.” City National Bank v. Coatney et al., 122 Okla. 233. 253 Pac. 481.

In this ease the petition in error prays that the cause be reversed and to- direct the court below to vacate its former judgment and enter judgment for the plaintiff in error, and we find upon examination that the authorities cited by the plaintiff in error reasonably support the contention of the plaintiff. We therefore reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct it to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate this cause of action for a trial upon its merits.