
    BEAMER v. ROBINSON et al.
    No. 12359
    Opinion Filed Nov. 27, 1923.
    Appeal and Error — Absence of Answer Brief —Reversal,
    Where plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief in compliance with the rules of the Supreme Court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor (ffered an excuse for such failure, the court is not required ,to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the court below may tie sustained but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
    (Syllabus by Maxey, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1.
    Error from Superior Court, Okmulgee County; H. R. Christopher, Judge.
    Action by R. B. Robinson against D. A. Beamer; John B. Williams, intervener. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.^
    Reversed.
    T. F. Shackelford, for plaintiff in error.
    Foster & Cooper and H. W. Timmons, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

MAXEY, C.

This appeal was lodged in this court on June 8, 1921. On June 20, 1923, plaintiff in error filed his brief, but defendant in error has neither filed his brief nor offered any excuse for such failure. The court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon whch the judgment of the court below may be sustained, but may where the authorities cited in the brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignment of error reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Rudd v. Wilson, 32 Okla. 85, 121 Pac. 252; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 Pac. 570. On the authority of the above cases and other cases from this court, the judgment in this case will be reversed and remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  