
    CITY NATIONAL BANK v. COATNEY et al.
    No. 17104
    Opinion Filed Feb. 22, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Failure* of Defendant in Error to File Brief — Reversal.
    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 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 eaus’e, with directions, in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.
    Error from County Court, Comanche County; P. C. Fullerton, Judge.
    Action by the City National Bank against R. M. Coatney et al. From the judgment, plaintiff brings error.
    Reversed and remanded, with directions.
    H. N. Whalin, for .plaintiff in error.
    J. F. Thomas, for defendants in error
   LESTER, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Comanelie county, Okla.

The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below.

The plaintiff in error, in due tirn'e, served and filed its briefs in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief, pleading, or any other instrument in said cause on appeal, nor has h’e offered any excuse for his failure to do so. 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 the plaintiff in error files brief and cites authorities therein which reasonably support and sustain the assignments of error, reverse th'e judgment of the lower court in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. See case, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pae. 34, Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich et al., 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

Note.—See 3 C. J. p. 1447, §1607; 2 R. C. L. p. 176; 1 R. C. L. Supp. p. 425.

In this case the petition in terror prays that this cause be reversed, directing the court below to vacate its former judgment and enter judgment for the plaintiff in error, and w'e find upon examination of the authorities cited by plaintiff in error they reasonably support the contention of plaintiff, and we. therefore, reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct that it vacate its former judgment and enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error.

BRANSON, C. J., MASON, V. C. J., and HARRISON, PI-IELPS, HUNT, and CLARK, J.T., concur.  