
    SINCLAIR OIL & GAS CO. v. ROSENBERG.
    No. 11644
    Opinion Filed Oct. 23, 1923.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Failure of Defendant in Error to File Brief — Dismissal.
    Where the plaintiff in error has duly filed and served brief in compliance with the rule of the Supreme Court, and defendant has neither filed brief nor offered excuse for failure so to do, the Supreme Court will not search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained: but, where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain any assignment of prejudicial error, the judgment will be reversed.
    Error from Superior Court, Tulsa County ; L. J. Martin, Judge.
    Action by Moesche Rosenberg against the Sinclair Oil & Gas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Reversed and remanded, with directions.
    Summers Hardy, Edward H. Chandler, Thos. J. Hanlon, and Robt. L. Imler, for plaintiff in error.
    H. B. Martin and R. A Reynolds, for defendant in error.
   COCHRAN, J.

Plaintiff in error filed its brief herein on March 9. 1923. No brief has been filed by defendant in error, and no reason assigned why brief has not beeni filed. Prom an examination of brief of plaintiff in error it appears that the demurrer filed by the plaintiff in error to the petition of defendant in error should have been sustained. This being' true, this court will not search (he record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to sustain demurrer to the petition.

JOHNSON, C. J., and McNEILL, NICHOLSON, and MASON. J.T., concur.  