
    W. T. RAWLEIGH CO. v. CLARK et al.
    No. 15713
    Opinion Filed Dec. 14, 1926.
    Appeal and Error — Review—Failure ef Defendant in Error to File Brief.
    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 th'e examination of the record it appears that the errors assigned are well founded, this court is not required to search for .some theory or for some authority that might possibly save the judgment appealed from. Walker v. Robinson, 66 Olcla. 56, 168 Pac. 1042.
    (Syllabus by Dickson, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division Mo. 4.
    Error from District Court, Jackson County ; Frank Mathews, Judge.
    Action by W. T. Rawleigh Company against J. F. Clark, J. H. Hudson, J. L. Sumrow, and G. R. Thrush. From judgment for d&-fenclants, plaintiff has appealed.
    Reversed and remanded.
    T. M. Robinson, for .plaintiff in error.
    P. K. Morrill .and P. Mounts, for defendants in error1.
   Opinion by

DICKSON, O.

This case was tried in the district court of Jackson county on July 12, 1922, resulting in a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff perfected its appeal to this court by filing its petition in error with case-made attached thereto on April 5, 1924. On January 3. 1925, the plaintiff in error filed its brief. On March 9, 1925, a stipulation was filed in said cause, to the effect that this case be continued pending the final decision in this court of T. J. Sparkman v. W. T. Rawleigh Co. (14284). Said cause was finally disposed of on April 13, 1926, 117 Okla. 235, 245 Pac. 828.

On July 20, 1926, the defendants in error were, by the order of this court, directed to file tlielr brief on or before September 15, 1926. This order has not been complied with and no excuse is offered or has been given therefor.

Note. — Bee. 3 O. J. p. 1447, §1607; 2 R.'O. L. p. 176; 1 R. C. L. Supp. p. 425.

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

In these circumstances we are not required to search the records for reasons why the judgment should be upheld or for authorities in support of the judgment appealed from. Under the authority of Miles v. Bird, 41 Okla. 428, 138 Pac. 789, and Walker v. Robinson, 66 Okla. 56, 166 Pac. 1042, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court of Jackson county for a new trial.

By the Court: It is so>ordered.  