
    CLIPSON et al. v. SEINSHEIMER PAPER CO.
    No. 13482 —
    Opinion Filed April 8, 1924.
    Appeal and Error — Abslence of Answer Brief —Reversal.
    Where the plaintiffs in error have duly filed and served brief in compliance with the rule of the Supreme Court, and defendant in error has neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure so to do, the Su-I>reme Court will not search the record to -find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained; but, where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain any assignment of prejudicial error, the judgment will be reversed.
    (Syllabus by Jarman, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion,
    Division No. 2.
    Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Albert C. Hunt, Judge.
    Action by the Seinsheimer Paper Company Against P. C. Clipson and Clipson Cleáning Works, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    O. A. Morton, for plaintiffs in error.
   Opinion by

JARMAN, C.

This is an appeal 'from the district court of Tulsa county. The plaintiffs in error filed their brief January 21, 1924. No brief has been filed by the defendant in earor and no extension of time has been given to file same and no reason has been assigned by the defendant in error as to why he has not filed brief. The brief of the plaintiffs in error appears to reasonably sustain the assignments of error, and under the rule of this court, the record will not be searched to find some theory upon which the judgment of the lower court may be sustained.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  