
    SPECKMAN & OSENBAUGH v. OKLAHOMA SALVAGE & SUPPLY CO.
    No. 17461
    Opinion Filed March 15, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Reversal for Failure to File Answer Brief.
    Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a bri'ef 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 oo¡urt 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 aceordjance with the prayer of the petition in 'error.
    Error from Superior Court, Okmulgee County; J. H. Swan, Judge.
    Action by the Oklahoma Salvage and Supply Company against Ben London; Speck-man and Osenbaugh, interveners. From judgment in favor of Oklahoma Salvage & Supply Company, interveners appeal.
    Reversed and remanded, with directions.
    E. F. Maley, for plaintiff in error.
    A. L. Maley, for defendant in- error.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court of Ok-mulgee county. The plaintiff in error, in due time, filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any bri'ef, pleadings, or other instrument in said cause on appeal, and has offered no excuse for its failure to do so.

In the case of City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233 253 Pac. 481. in an opinion by this court of date February 22, 1927. it is held that:

“Under this condition of the ease 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 bri'ef 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. 213, 171 Pac. 34; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

In this case plaintiff in error prays that this caus'e be reversed, and that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff in error and against defendants in error, that it be restored to all rights lost by reason of rendition of said judgment. Upon examination of authorities cited by plaintiff in error in its brief filed in this cause, it is found' that the contentions of the plaintiff in error are reasonably supported thereby, and it is hereby directed by 'this ocuurt that said judgment appealed from be vacated by the trial court, and that it render judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error enjoining the plaintiff in the trial court from interfering with plaintiff in error in its peaceable possession of the property described in said cause of action and that said plaintiff below be denied any right, title, or interest in ana to said property by reason of the chattel mortgage described in plaintiff’s petition in the trial court.

Note.—See 3 C. J. p. 1447, §1607; D. p 176; 1 R. C. L. Supp. p. 425; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 77.  