HILL v. SEVERIN TIRE & SUPPLY CO.

HILL v. SEVERIN TIRE & SUPPLY CO.
1940 OK 401
105 P.2d 1064
188 Okla. 48
Case Number: 29596
Decided: 10/01/1940
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

HILL
v.
SEVERIN TIRE & SUPPLY CO.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Reversal--Failure of defendant in error to file brief.
Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of court, but the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for its 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 cause, with directions.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Charles W. Conner, Judge.

Action on account by the Severin Tire & Supply Company against John L. Hill et al. From a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants named in the petition in the trial court the defendant John L. Hill appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Ram Morrison, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Garrett, Goodson & Rigsby, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The plaintiff in error filed an action against John L. Hill and another. Judgment was entered against both defendants. John L. Hill alone appeals and has filed a petition in error with case-made attached. On January 26, 1940, he filed a brief, and the authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the position that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff against the said defendant Hill. No brief has been filed by the defendant in error. As announced by this court in Oklahoma City v. Blondin, 163 Okla. 276, 21 P.2d 1053, together with many other cases, it is not the duty of this court to search the record to find some theory to sustain the judgment where no brief has been filed by the defendant in error and the authorities cited by the plaintiff in error reasonably sustain the allegations of the petition in error.

¶2 The cause is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the judgment of the plaintiff against the defendant John L. Hill.