
    MIDLAND VALLEY RY. CO. v. HORTON.
    No. 4117.
    Opinion Filed May 18, 1915.
    (149 Pac. 131.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Failure to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed a brief as required by the rules of this court, and there' is no brief filed and no reason given for its absence on the part of the defendant in error, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error ,the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiff in error.
    (Syllabus by Devereux, C.)
    
      Error from County Court, Leflore County; P. C. Bolg&r, Judge.
    
    Action by Bobert Horton against the Midland Valley Eailway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Eeversed.
    The petition in this case alleges that the plaintiff in error on or about the 25th day of October, 1909, while operating its line of railway through Leflore county, Oída., and a considerable time prior to the 25th day of October, allowed its fences and -gates along its right of way to be torn down and remain in such bad state of repair as to allow stock to stray upon its right of way, and that in consequence thereof the filly of the plaintiff was-killed, to his' damage of $100. There was a demurrer to his petition, which was overruled and exception duly saved. The defendant then answered by general denial, and the defense of contributory negligence.
    
      Edgar A. Be Meules, Sol II. Kauffman, and T. T. Varner,. for plaintiff in error.
    
      'Tom IF. Neal, for defendant in error.
   DEYEBEUX, C.

(after stating the facts as above). This case was docketed in this court on June’ 21, 1912, and a brief filed and served by the plaintiff in error on October 2, 1912, but no brief has been filed by the defendant in error. The case was set down for oral argument on April 23, 1915, and submitted by the plaintiff in error on its brief, and defendant in error was given 20 days to file brief, but the case was submitted on-that day. The time granted the defendant in error to file briefs-has expired, but none has been filed, and no reason given for such-failure. An examination of the very well prepared brief of the-plaintiff in error shows that there is reasonable ground! for its-contention.

In Security Insurance Co. v. Droke, 40 Okla. 116, 136 Pac. 430, the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Hayes,, says:

• The “defendant in error has chosen not to file any brief in-this court in answer to the brief of plaintiff in error, or in-support of the judgment of the trial court. The brief of plaintiff in error appears to- sustain fully its contention. It has been held repeatedly by this court that where plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed Iris .brief as required by the rules of the court, and there is no brief filed or no reason given for its absence on the part of defendant in error, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment * * * may be sustained; but, where the brief filed by plaintiff in error appears reasonably to sustain his assignments of error, the court will reverse the judgment -in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error. Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465 [107 Pac. 170]; Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469 [106 Pac. 9571; Flanagan v. Davis, 27 Okla. 422 [112 Pac. 990]; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456, [112 Pac, 991]."

This is a governing authority in the case at bar. We therefore recommend that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  