Title: MISSOURI K. & T. R. CO. v. BLUE.
Citation: 160 P. 59 4, 1916 OK 878, 61 Okla. 125
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: October 17, 1916

MISSOURI K. & T. R. CO. v. BLUE. Annotate this Case MISSOURI K. & T. R. CO. v. BLUE. 1916 OK 878 160 P. 594 61 Okla. 125 Case Number: 7113 Decided: 10/17/1916 Supreme Court of Oklahoma MISSOURI, K. & T. R. CO. v. BLUE. Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Briefs--Effect of Failure to File--Reversal. Where a plaintiff has prepared, served and filed a brief, and there is no brief filed and no reason given or excuse offered for its absence on the part of the defendant in error, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory on which the judgment below may be sustained, but when the brief appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Error from County Court, Osage County; Paul B. Mason, Judge. Action by G. W. Blue against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded for new trial. Clifford L. Jackson, W. R. Allen, and M. D. Green, for plaintiff in error. BRUNSON, C. ¶1 The defendant in error has failed to file a brief in this court in support of his judgment in compliance with the rules and orders of this court. The brief of the plaintiff in error appears to sustain its contention, and where the plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed its brief as provided by the rules of this court, and there is no brief filed by the defendant in error nor reason given nor excuse offered for not doing so, and the same is long overdue, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory on which the judgment below may be sustained; but when the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain and support the assignments of error, this court may reverse the judgment in compliance with the prayer of the petition. C., R. I. & P. R. Co. et al. v. Sewell, 60 Okla. 30 , 158 P. 1142; Bryan et al., State Board of Agriculture, v. State ex rel. Holt, County Attorney, et al., 44 Okla. 653 , 146 P. 32. ¶2 The judgment should therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. ¶3 By the Court: It is so ordered.