
    CROWLEY v. CITY OF TULSA.
    No. 20957.
    Opinion Filed June 16, 1931.
    Woodson E. Norvell, for plaintiff in error.
    M. C. Spradling, City Atty., and Eben L. Taylor, Asst. City Atty., for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Tulsa county in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was plaintiff. The plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief in this cause as required by the rules of this court. The defendant in error has failed to file any brief or to offer any excuse for his failure to do so. We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and the assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holding of this court, we are not required to brief a case on behalf of defendant in error, or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment should be sustained. Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank, 51 Okla 368, 151 Pac. 1044; Love Motor Co. v. Croskell, 141 Okla. 139, 284 Pac. 297. The judgment o'f the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

McNEILL, J., disqualified, not, participal ing.  