
    BROWN v. EDDINGS.
    No. 10666
    Opinion Filed Dec. 12, 1922
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief— Reversal.
    it is well settled that where the plaintiff in error lias filed a complete record íd the Ku-preme Court and lias served and filed a brief in. compliance with the rules of the court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, the Supreme Court is not required to 'search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; and, where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears to reasonably sustain his assignments of error, the court may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition of the plaintiff In error.
    Error from District Court, Cotton County; Cham Jones, Judge.
    Action between W. G. Brown and C. M. Eddings. From thei judgment, the former brings error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    X. I. MoElhoes, for plaintiff in error.
    Guy Green and Morris & Wiells, for defendants in error.
   KANE, J.

In this proceeding in error, counsel for plaintiff in error filed a brief which appears to reasonably sustain his assignments of error. The defendant in error lias filed no brief, and has not offered any excuse for failure to do so.

It is 'well settled that where the plaintiff in error has filed a complete record in the Supreme Court and has served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of the court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failures the Supreme Court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained ; and, where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears to reasonably sustain his assignments of error, the court may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition rif the plaintiff in error. Investors Mortgage Security Co. v. Bilby, 78 Okla. 146, 189 Pac. 190; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 80 Okla. 787, 195 Pac. 494 ; One Certain Hupmobile v. State, 81 Okla. 73, 196 Pac. 675; Chicago. R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Runkle, 81 Okla. 106. 197 Pac. 153; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich. 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167: Stinehcomb v. Oklahoma City. 81 Okla. 102, 197 Pac. 437; Harrison v. M. Koehler Co., 82 Okla. 26, 198 Pac. 295; Obialero v. Henryetta Spelter Co., 82 Okla. 274, 200 Pac. 143; Russell & Washington v. Robertson, 82 Okla. 283, 200 Pac. 150; Incorporated Town of Kusa v. Bouggous, 82 Okla. 204, 200 Pac. 154.

For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

' McNEILL, MILLER, KENNAMER, and NICHOLSON, J.T., concur.  