
    JENKINS et al. v. HAMPTON et ux.
    No. 14372 —
    Opinion Filed Nov. 13, 1923.
    Appeal and Error — Absence of Answer Brief — Review.
    Where plaintiff in error files his brief in this court as required by Rule 7 of this court, and the defendant in error fails to file briefs and assigns no reason for such failure, this court is not required to search the record to" find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be affirmed.
    (Syllabus by Ruth, O.) •
    Commissioners’ Opinion,
    Division No. 3.
    Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Z. I. J. Holt, Judge.
    Action by G. Z. Jenkins and another against E. E. Hampton and wife. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
    Reversed, with directions.
    F. O. Cavitt and John T. Harley, for plaintiffs in error.
   Opinion by

RUTH, O.

This action was originally filed in the district court of Tulsa county by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants’ in error for foreclosure of a certain mortgage on real estate and for the appointment of a receiver for the property. The parties hereto will be designated - as they appeared in the court below.

The plaintiffs, filed their petition setting forth all necessary facts and written instruments to entitle them to judgment, in which petition | it was alleged that the mortgage prayed to be foreclosed was a purchase money mortgage. Defendants filed their answer, and on April 6, 1923, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff Jenkins for the sum due, and for foreclosure of the mortgage and denying the application for appointment of a receiver. From the judgment of the court in denying the plaintiff’s application for a receiver, this cause is regularly brought here for review.

Plaintiff has filed briefs herein as required by Rule 7 of this court, and defendants have neither filed briefs nor advanced any reason for their neglect or failure to file same, and this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the court may be affirmed. Longhbridge et al. v. Tynes, 91 Okla. 78, 215 Pac. 1052.

Upon examination of the brief of the plaintiff, we find it reasonably sustains the assignments of error set forth therein and that the plaintiff is entitled to the appointment of a receiver for the property set forth by description in plaintiff’s petition, and this cause should be reversed with directions to the court below to grant the application for a receiver, as prayed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  