
    MERCHANTS SOUTHWEST TRANSFER & STORAGE CO. v. WOODRUFF.
    No. 12497 —
    Opinion Filed Nov. 6, 1923.
    Appeal and Error — Absence of Answer Brief —. Review.
    Where the plaintiff in error has filed a brief, and the defendant in error has filed none, and has given no excuse for his failure, and upon the examination of the record it appears that the errors assigned are well founded, this court is not required to stearch for some theory, or for some authority, that might possibly save the judgment appealed from.
    (Syllabus by Dickson, C.)
    Commissioners’' Opinion,
    Division No. 4.
    Error from County Court, Oklahoma County; W. R. Taylor, Judge.
    Action by R. A. Woodruff, against Merchants Southwest Transfer & Storage Company. -Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
    Reversed.
    Gasper Edwards, for plaintiff in error.
    Albert L. McRill, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

DICKSON, C.

This case was tried in the county court of Oklahoma county, on the 15th day of December, 1920, 'resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant in error, R. A. Woodruff, and1 against the plaintiff in error, Merch- ■ ants Southwest Transfer & Storage Company. Motion for a new trial in the lower court was overruled and within the time allowed' by law, the plaintiff in error perfected its appeal to this court by filing its petition in error with 'case-made attached. ,

On the 31st' day of July, the attorney for • the defendant in error accepted service of- ■ the plaintiff in error’s brief, and on the:' same day said brief was filed; in this court. The defendant in error has filed no brief .- and no extension of time has been granted, and no excuse is shown why such brief has not been filed.

We have examined the errors assigned in the brief of the plaintiff in error and the record upon which they are predicated, and the grounds urged for a reversal appear to be well taken.

Where such a situation arises as presented iu this ease, we are not required to ■ search the record for reasons why the judgment should, he upheld, neither are we required to 'search for authorities in support of the judgment appealed from.

Upon the authority of Miles v. Bird, 41 Okla. 428, 138 Pac. 789, and Walker v. Robinson, 66 Okla. 56, 166 Pac. 1042, the judgment appealed from will be reversed in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error and the cause remanded

By the Court: It is so ordered.  