
    YAUK v. ROGERS.
    No. 6716.
    Opinion Filed April 18, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied May 9, 1916.
    (157 Pac. 801.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Briefs—Effect of Failure to File — Reversal. Where a plaintiff in error has prepared, served, and filed a brief as required by the rules of this court, and there is no brief filed on the part of ithe defendant in error, and no' reason given lor its absence, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be sustained; but, where the brief filed áppears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff in error.
    (Syllabus by Galbraith, O.)
    
      Error from District Court, Harper County; W. C. Crow, Judge.
    
    
      Action by Frank S. Rogers against Godlieb B. Yauk. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Reversed and remanded for new trial.
    
      Gray & McVay, A. H. Walker, and R. H. Nichols, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Charles Swindall, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

GALBRAITH, C.

Frank S. Rogers, as plaintiff, commenced this action against Godlieb B. Yauk, as defendant, to quiet title to a strip of land 19 rods wide, extending across the south side of the N. E. V4, of section 23, township 29 north, range 22 west, located in Harper county. Theré was a trial to the court and a jury and a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $55. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict for the amount thereof, and quieting title to the strip in dispute in the plaintiff.- To review that judgment the cause has been brought to this court.

The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court July 22, 1914. The cause was regularly submitted December 6, 1915. The brief and argument in behalf of the plaintiff in error were filed November 3, 1915. The defendant in error has filed no reply brief, nor given any satisfactory reason for not doing so.

Inasmuch as the brief of the plaintiff in error reasonably tends to support the assignments of error, following Taylor v. Wade & Co., 44 Okla. 294, 144 Pac. 559, and the cases cited therein, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered:  