
    MERCHANTS’ & PLANTERS’ NAT. BANK v. COLE.
    No. 12236
    Opinion Filed Nov. 27, 1923.
    Appeal and Error — Absence of Answer Brief —Reversal.
    Where plaintiff in error complies with the rules and files his brief, but defendant in error files no brief, the court will not search the record for some reason for affirming the case. But where the brief filed reasonably tends to support the assignment of error, the case will be reversed and remanded for a ' new trial.
    (Syllabus by Maxey, O.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1.
    Error from District Court, Pontotoc County; Charles T. Barney, Special Judge.
    Action by H. A. Cole, against Merchants’ & Planters’ Bank. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Reversed.
    W. L. Schulte, for plaintiff in error.
    W. C. Edwards, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

MAXEY, C.

The record in this case, with petition in error attached, was filed in this court on April 29, 1921. Plaintiff in error has had printed and served its brief, and the ease has been regularly reached for disposal, and defendant in error has filed no brief and offered no excuse for not filing one; and under the rule followed Iby a long line of decisions of this court, a failure on the part of defendant in error to file brief or offer some excuse for not filing one, and it appearing that the brief filed by plaintiff in. error reasonably tends to sustain the assignment of error, this court will not look into the record to find some way in which t]je judgment might be sustained, but will reverse the ease in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 Pac. 170; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 Pac. 570; Rudd v. Wilson, 32 Okla. 85, 121 Pac. 252. For the reasons above stated, the judgment in this ease is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

By the Court; It is so ordered.  