
    STONE v. ALBERTSON et al.
    No. 13468
    Opinion Filed Sept. 16, 1924.
    Appeal and Error — Absence of Answer Brief —Reversal.
    Where the plaintiff in error has duly filed and served brief in compliance with che rule of the -Supreme Court, and defendants in error have neither filed brief nor offered excuse for fa1 lure so to do, the Supreme 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, Creek County; John L. Norman, Judge.
    Action by Yan H. Albertson et al. against A. H. St one. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
    Reversed.
    Cheatham, Beaver & Johnston, for plaintiff in error.
   Opinion by

JARMAN, C.

This is an appeal from the district court of Creek county. The plaintiff in error filed brief December 20, 1922. No brief has been filed by the defendants in error_ and no extension of time has been given to file same and no reason has been assigned by the defendants in error as to why they have not filed brief. The brief of the plaintiff 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.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  