Title: ED HOCKADAY & CO. v. BOYLES
Citation: 168 Okla. 243, 1934 OK 278, 32 P.2d 718
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 8, 1934

ED HOCKADAY & CO. v. BOYLES Annotate this Case ED HOCKADAY & CO. v. BOYLES 1934 OK 278 32 P.2d 718 168 Okla. 243 Case Number: 24322 Decided: 05/08/1934 Supreme Court of Oklahoma ED HOCKADAY & CO. v. BOYLES et al. Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Reversal in Absence of Answer Brief. Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of court, but the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, the 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. Appeal from District Court, Blaine County; E. L. Mitchell, Judge. Action by Ed Hockaday & Company against Prank M. Boyles and H. Slemmer. From a judgment for defendant Slemmer, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions. J. P. Wishard, for plaintiff in error. Theodore Graalman, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Blaine county to recover for the conversion of wheat, and after a trial without a jury the court found the issues in favor of the defendant, and it is from a judgment refusing to find for the plaintiff against the purchaser of the wheat that this appeal is prosecuted. On June 13, 1933, plaintiff in error filed brief, which reasonably supports the allegations of the petition in error. Under the authorities of the opinions of this court many times rendered, it is not the duty of this court to search the record to find some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court. Moore v. Jefferson, 164 Okla. 270 , 23 P.2d 693; Chapman v. Taylor, 163 Okla. 274, 21 P.2d 1058.