
    OKLAHOMA FARM MORTGAGE CO. v. MORGAN et al.
    No. 17837
    Opinion Filed March 15, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Reversal for Failure to File Answer Brief.
    Where plaintiff in error has served and filled its brief in. compliance with th’e rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this 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, in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.
    ■ Error from District Court, Mayes County; A.. O. Brewster, .Judge.
    Action between Oklahoma Earm Mortgage Company and P. F. Morgan and others. From judgment, .the former appeals.
    Reversed and remanded, with directions.
    Note.—See 3 C. J. p. 1447, §1607; 2 R. C. L. p. 176: 1 R. C. L. Supp. p. 425 ; 5 R. C. L. Supp. 77.
    H. W. Harris and Harry .Seaton, for plaintiff in error.
    R. A. Wilkerson. for defendants in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Mayes county. Plaintiff in error was plaintiff below. The plaintiff in error in due time served and filed its brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but th'e defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief, plead, or otherwise appear in this cause on appeal, nor has any excuse been offered for failure to do so.

In the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 Pac. 481, it is held that:

“Under this condition of the case this 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 plaintiff in error files brief and cites authorities therein which reasonably support and sustain the assignments of error, reverse the judgment of the lower court in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.” See Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

In this case plaintiff in error prays that this cause be reversed and the judgment be rendered in favor of the„ plaintiff, and that plaintiff be restored all! rights it has lost by reason of said judgment.

We find upon examination that the authority cited in plaintiff in error’s brief reasonably supports the contention of plaintiff, and therefore reverse th’e judgment of the trial court and direct it to vacate its former judgment and enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in error in all matters involved in this appeal.  