
    BRADLEY et al. v. MORRIS.
    No. 11676
    Opinion Filed Sept. 18, 1923.
    Appeal and Error — Failure of Defendants in Error to File Brief.
    When the defendant in error chooses not to aid this court with a brief, and 1ho brief of the plaintiff in error appears reasonably to support the assignments of error, this court will not search the records with a view of ascertaining some theory on which the judgment may be affirmed.
    (Syllabus by Maxey, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1.
    Error from District Court, Stephens County ; Cham Jones, Judge. , :
    Action by Mamie E. Bradh-y and R. A. Mathews against O. M. Morris. Judgment for defendant, and Plaintiffs appeal,
    Reversed and remanded.
    Sandlin & Winans, for plaintiffs in error.
   Opinion by

MAXEY, O.

The petition in error in this case was filed August 27, 1920, and the brief of plaintiff in error was filed on the 26th day of June, 1923, showing service on defendant in error. No briefs have been filed by defendant in error.

We, therefore, apply the.rule of this court, so often announced, that where brief of plaintiff in error reasonably tends to support the assignments of error, the court will not search the record to ascertain some possible theory on which the case may be affirmed, hut if the assignments of error appear to be reasonably supported by the record the case will be reversed. Following this rule the j -dgment in this case will be reversed “and the case remanded to the trial court with directions to grant new trial. Depenbrink v. Murphy, 54 Okla. 572, 154 Pac. 529; Stitch v. Danciger Bros., 54 Okla. 640, 154 Pac. 514; Austin v. Campbell, 54 Okla. 671, 154 Pac. 514; McClure v. Ingram, 54 Okla. 741, 154 Pac. 575; Butte v. Routh, 56 Okla. 320, 169 Pac. 891; Olentine v. Backbone, 64 Okla. 164, 166 Pac. 127; Langley v. Weaver, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 530; Harrison v. M. Koehler Co., 82 Okla. 26, 198 Pac. 295; Town of Kusa v. Bonggous, 82 Okla. 204, 200 Pac. 154.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  