
    SARKEYS et al. v. BUCKNER.
    No. 11774 —
    Opinion Fiiled Nov. 6, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied March 25, 1924.
    Appeal and Error — Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief — Reversal.
    Where the plaintiffs in error have duly filed and served brief in compliance with the rule of the Supreme Court, and defendant has neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure 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 .Tarman, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion.
    Division No. 2.
    Error from District Court, Hughes County; John D. Coffman, Judge.
    Action by Guy M. Buckner againtet S. J. Sarkeys and Frank L. Warren. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Judgment of the lower court is reversed.
    
      Warren, Miller & Crutcher, for plaintiffs in error. ■'
   Opinion by

JARMAN, C.

This is an appeal from the district court of' Hughes county. The plaintiffs In error filed their brief on August 4, 1923. No brief has been filed by the defendant in error and no ex-tensa n of time has been given to file same and no reasons have 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.

Judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  