
    PLANTERS’ STATE BANK OF TUSHKA v. WALTON.
    No. 16978
    Opinion Filed March 22, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied April 26, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal anti Error — Reversal in Absence of Answer Brief.
    Where the plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered' any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed, appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions, in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.
    Note. — -See 3 O. ,T. p. 1447, §1607: 2 R. C. L. p. 176.
    Error from County Court. Atoka County; Otis H. Presson, Judge.
    Action between the Planters State Bank of Tushka, Okla., and It. M. Walton. Prom the judgment, the former brings error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Gordon Fryer, for plaintiff in error."
    0. McCasland, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Atoka county. Plaintiff in error was plaintiff below. The plaintiff in error in due tim'e served and filed its brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief or to otherwise appear in this cause in this court, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

In the ease of the City National Bank v. Coateny et al, 122 Okla. 144, 253 Pac. 481, this court held:

“Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and. the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the Brief filed appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions, in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.” Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 67 Okla. 293, 171 Pac. 34; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich et al., 81 Okla. 159, 197 Pac. 167.

In this case the plaintiff in error prays that the judgment rendered in the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendant in error for the amount sued for in the trial court, and we find upon examination that the authorities cited by plaintiff in error in its brief reasonably support the contentions of the plaintiff in error. It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, set aside, and held for naught and that said cause be remanded, with directions, that the trial court render judgment in fgyor of the plaintiff in error and against the defendant in error for the amount sued for in the trial "court.

CLARK, J., disqualified and not participating.  