
    CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. SEWALL.
    No. 6448
    Opinion Filed July 11, 1916.
    (158 Pac. 1142.)
    Appeal and Error — Briefs—Effect of Failure to File — Reversal.
    Where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed a brief, and there is no brief filed and no reason given for its absence ‘on the part of the defendant in error, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; but, when the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain the assignment of error, the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
    (Syllabus by Rittenhouse, C.)
    Error from County Court, Beckham County ; E. n. Gipson. Judge.
    Action by R. N. Sewall against the Chicago. Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    See, also 52 Okla. 593, 153 Pac. 143.
    C. O. Blake, for plaintiffs in error.
   Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

Defendant in error has failed to file a brief in support of his judgment. The brief of the plaintiff in error appears to sustain its contention; and where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed its brief as provided by the rules of this court; and there is a no brief filed by the defendant in error, nor reason given for its absence, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory on which the judgment below may be sustained ; but, where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, this court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Bryan et al., State Board of Agriculture, v. State ex rel. Holt Co. Atty., et al., 44 Okla. 653, 146 Pac. 32.

The judgment should therefore be reversed,, and the cause remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  