Case Name: DICKSON v. TAYLOR et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1923-10-16
Citations: 101 Okla. 119
Docket Number: No. 12090
Parties: DICKSON v. TAYLOR et al.
Judges: JOHNSON, O. J., McNEILL, V. O. J.. and KANE. KENNAMER, COCHRAN, and HARRISON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 119–119

Head Matter:
DICKSON v. TAYLOR et al.
No. 12090
Opinion Filed Oct. 16, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1924.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error—Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief—Scope of Review.
Where the plaintiff in error has filed a brief, and the defendant in error has filed none, -and has given no excuse for his failure, and upon the examinatipn of the record it appears that the errors assigned are well founded, this court is not required to search for some theory, or for some authority, that might possibly save the judgment appealed from.
Error from District Court, Beaver County; Arthur G. Sutton, Judge. •
Action by Alexander J. Dickson against John Taylor and J. B. Buck. Judgment for defendant John Taylor. Plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
• Homer N. Boardman. for plaintiff in er,r.or.
Charles Swindall and H. E., Hoover,, for defendants in error. '

Opinion:
MASON, J.
This case was tried in the district court of Beaver county on the 28th day of September, 1920. An appeal' was perfected by filing a petition in error with case-made attached in this court on the 2nd day of March, 1921.
lOh the 1st da.y of August, 1923, the -plaintiff in error filed his brief in thi-s court. The appearance docket shows due service upon the attorney for the defendants in error on the 1st day of August, 1923. The de-. fendants. in error have filed no brief, and no extension of time has been granted, and no- excuse is shown why brief has not been filed. The records of the clerk's office' show that the counsel for the defendants in • error withdrew the case-made on the 11th day of August,' 1923, and sail retain the same.
We have examined the errors assigned in the brief of the plaintiff in error and the abstract of the record upon which they are predicated, and the grounds urged for a reversal appear to be well taken.
Where such a situation is presented as has arisen in this case, we are required to search the record for reasons why the judgment should be upheld, neither-are we required to search for authorities in support of the judgment appealed from.
Upon the authorities of Miles v. Bird, 41 Okla. 428, 138 Pac. 789; Walker v. Robinson, 66 Okla. 56, 166 Pac. 1042, the judgment appealed from will be reversed in accordance with ihe prayer of the petition in error, and the cause remanded.
JOHNSON, O. J., McNEILL, V. O. J.. and KANE. KENNAMER, COCHRAN, and HARRISON, JJ., concur.