APPEAL AND ERROR — Scope of Review — Failure to File Brief. Where the plaintiff in error has filed a brief, and the defendant in error has filed none, and has given no excuse for his failure, and upon examination of the record it appears that the errors asserted are well founded, this court is not required to search for some theory, or for authorities, that might possibly save the judgment appealed from.
(Syllabus by Brewer, C.)
Opinion by BREWER, C.
This appeal by case-made was filed in this court February 27, 1912. The plaintiff in error filed brief on May 29, 1912. The defendant in error has not filed a brief, and has given no reason for not doing so.
We have examined the errors assigned in the brief for plaintiff in error, and the record upon which they are predicated, and the grounds urged for reversal appear to be well taken. In such situation we are not required to search the record, or to hunt for authorities, to find some theory upon which the judgment may possibly be sustained. Butler v. McSpadden, 25 Okla. 465, 107 P. 170; Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469, 106 P. 957; Buckner v. Oklahoma Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 472, 106 P. 959; Reeves Co. v. Brennan, 25 Okla. 544, 106 P. 959; Sharpleigh Hdw. Co. v. Pritchard, 25 Okla. 808, 108 P. 360; Butler v. Stinson, 26 Okla. 216, 108 P. 1103; School Dist. v. Shelton, 26 Okla. 229, 109 P. 67, 138 Am. St. Rep. 962; Flanagan v. Davis, 27 Okla. 422, 112 P. 990; M., K. T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 27 Okla. 456, 112 P. 991; Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99, 118 P. 371; Doyle v. School Dist., 30 Okla. 81, 118 P. 386; Bank of Grove v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 70, 118 P. 570; Hawkins v. White, 31 Okla. 118, 120 P. 561; Rudd v. Wilson, 32 Okla. 85, 121 P. 252; Reynolds-Davis Co. v. Hotchkiss, 31 Okla. 606, 122 P. 165; First Nat. Bank v. Blair, 31 Okla. 562, 122 P. 527; Van Arsdale-Osborne Brokerage Co. v. Patterson, 30 Okla. 113, 120 P. 933.
The cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
By the Court: It is so ordered.