Viersen v. Stanfill

Supreme Court of Oklahoma March 18, 1952

Viersen v. Stanfill, 206 Okla. 184 (Okla. 1952)

242 P.2d 162; 1952 OK 109; 1952 Okla. LEXIS 540

Davison, Halley, Welch, Corn, Gibson, Johnson, O'Neal, Bingaman

Opinion of the Court

DAVISON, J.

Plaintiffs in error have appealed from a judgment against them in the trial court and on September 28, 1951, filed their brief. The authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The defendants in error have filed no brief and have offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated in Fore v. Fore, 203 Okla. 75, 218 P. 2d 366, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon *185which to sustain the action of the trial crurt, but the cause will be reversed and remanded with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for D. A. Stanfill and Martha E. Stanfill for attorney’s fee.

HALLEY, Y. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, JOHNSON, O’NEAL, and BINGAMAN, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name: VIERSEN v. STANFILL
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: (Syllabus.) APPEAL AND ERROR — Review — Failure of defendant in error to file brief — Reversal. Where plaintiffs in error have served and filed brief, but the defendants in error have neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for their 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.