
    AHFONOKE et al. v. BULLETT et al.
    No. 10632
    Opinion Filed May 4, 1926.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Reversal '— Failure of Defendants in > Error to. File Brief.
    In an action appealed to this court, where the cross-petitioners in error filed brief and no brief is filed by defendants in error and no reason given showing why the det end-ants in error have not filed brief, and the brief of the cross-petitioners in error reasonably supports the -assignments of error, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment ctf the trial court may be sustained ; but this court will reverse the. judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.
    to W-a o r-i Ntl fc- . 2 ft S ft t-j & co Q> H GC ... J.S2 !*
    Appeal from District Court, Creek County ; E. B. Hughes, Judge.
    Action between I-Ioktoche Ahfonoke et al. and James Bullett et al. From the judgment, certain ctf the parties appeal.-
    Reversed and remanded.
    Nestor Rummons and John M. McDonald, for cross-petitioners in error.
    West, Sherman' & Davidson, lor defendants in error D. Replogle and IT. L. Graves.
   PER CURIAM.

This action was brought in the district court of Creek county by James Bullett land Susie Harjo against plaintiffs in error and defendants in error, who are numerous and need not be set out: in this opinion, to recover a eertain tract of land in Creek county allotted by Charley Keys and of which he died seized aiid possessed. At his death the land descended to his widow and minor child. The child died, and the main contention is as to whether "the land descended under the Arkansas statute. The widow died, and her interest descended to her father, Joe Deere, and cross-petitioners in error, Yarner Chupco, Amanda Micc-o, Mary Deere, Lucy Buckner, and John M. McDonald, guardian ad litem, claim to be the sole heirs of John Deere, and therefore entitled to the land. Defendants in error D. Replogle and II. L. Graves also claim title to the land, and were adjudged to be the -owners of the land as against cross-petitioners in error, and they appealed. The rights and interests of all the parties to this voluminous record have been settled ’ except the issues involved as between cross-petitioners in' error hereinbe-fore’ mentioned and defendants in error D. Replogle .and H. L. Graves. Cross-petitioners in error filed their brief in this court on the 19th day of September, 1919, but defendants in error have filed no brief and have shown no reason why same has not. been done..

In such a situation this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upen which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but where the brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error reasonably supports his assignments of error, this court will reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition in. error. Security Insurance Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 340; Frost v. Haley, 63 Okla. 19, 161 Pac. 1174.

We have carefully examined the brief of' the plaintiff in error in this cause and the same appears to reasonably sustain the assignments of error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court, of Creek county, with directions to grant a new trial.  