
    GYPSY OIL CO. v. HICKMAN et al.
    No. 14225
    Opinion Filed Sept. 18, 1923.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief-Reversal.
    Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendants in error have neither filed a 'brief nor offered anj-excuse for their failure to do so, the 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 case in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.
    Error from District Court, Kay County; Claude Duval, Judge. ■
    Action by L. D. Hickman and another against the Gypsy Oil Company for injunction. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    James B. Diggs. William O. Liedtke, and Redmond S. Cole, for plaintiff in error.
   NICHOLSON, J.

L. D. Hickman and Stuart McQuirk, as plaintiffs, instituted this action in the district court of Kay county, against Gypsy Oil Company, as defendant, to enjoin the defendant from building any obstructions in any of the streets and alleys of the town site of Hickman, or in any way interfering with the streets and alleys of said town site. Upon a hearing, the trial court made an order granting a temporary injunction, as prayed for, and from this order the defendant has appealed!

The plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief, but the defendants, in error have neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for their failure to do so, and under these circumstances, 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, when 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 in error. Godfrey v. Pounds, 86 Okla. 76, 206 Pac. 516; In re Estate of Enos Nichols, 86 Okla. 181, 207 Pac. 93.

As the brief of plaintiff in error and the authorities therein cited appear to reasonably sustain the assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

JOHNSON, C. J., and McNEILL, KANE, KENNAMER, COCHRAN, BRANSON, and MASON, JJ., concur.  