WILKINSON v. CRISWELL

WILKINSON v. CRISWELL
1923 OK 1014
220 P. 477
93 Okla. 261
Case Number: 14387
Decided: 11/20/1923
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

WILKINSON
v.
CRISWELL.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error -- Absence of Answer Brief -- Review.
Where the defendant in error fails to file answer brief, as required by rules of the court, the appellate court is not required to explore the record, or search for authorities, to find reasons why the judgment should be upheld, but may dismiss the cause, affirm or reverse the judgment at its discretion.
2. Same--Reversal.
Record examined, together with brief of plaintiff in error and authorities cited therein, and held, that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed with directions.

Cowley & Riddle, for plaintiff in error.
Schwabe, Raymond & Wedell, for defendant in error.

SHACKELFORD, C.

¶1 The plaintiff in the trial court began this action in the district court of Nowata county, on the 30th of June, 1921. Plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to prevent her from going into his home, or upon his premises, or in any way interfering with the plaintiff's care and custody of Sam F. Wilkinson, the defendant's infant son who had been placed in the care and custody of plaintiff by a court decree. Upon application to the court a temporary restraining order was issued against the defendant as prayed for; and the same served upon her. On the 21st of December, 1921, the defendant appeared and filed a demurrer to the petition for the alleged reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and on the further ground that there was a defect of parties plaintiff. The demurrer was overruled. On the 20th of February, 1922, the defendant filed her answer, in effect a general denial, and a plea of a defect of parties plaintiff. The cause was tried to the court on the 2nd of December 1922. On the calling of the first witness for plaintiff, the defendant made an objection to the taking of any testimony for the reasons assigned in her demurrer, which objection was by the court overruled. Upon the announcement of rest by the parties, and on the 2nd day of December, 1922, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff granting a permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for in the petition of the plaintiff, and the defendant brings error. Petition in error was filed in the Supreme Court on the 31st of May, 1923. Plaintiff in error filed her brief in this court on September 6, 1923. Acceptance of service of brief of plaintiff in error was filed September 15, 1923. Under the rules of the court heretofore promulgated, and by rule No. 7, the defendant in error was required to file his answer brief on or or before the 15th of October, 1923. No answer brief has been filed and no excuse is offered for the default. No extension of time to file brief has been asked for or granted to the defendant in error.