The opinion
KANE,,, J..
In this proceeding in error cojinsel for plaintiff in error have filed a brief which, appears . to reasonably . sustain their -assignments of error.
The defendant in error has-filed no" brief and has offered no excuse for failure '-'to do so.
Bit' is well settled that where the plaintiff in error has filed a complete record in the Supreme Court and has served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of ■ the court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, the Supreme Court is not required to - search'the record to find some theory upon which the judgment below may be-sustained ; and, where the brief filed by' the plaintiff in error appears to reasonably, sustain his assignments of error, the court- may reverse the case in., accordance with the prayer' of the petition of the plaintiff, ,in error.” Investors’ Mortgage Security Co. v. Bilby, 78 Okla. 146 . 189 Pac. 190 ; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 80 Okla. 787 , 195 Pac. 494 ; One Certain Hupmobile v State, 81 Okla. 73 , 196 Pac. 675 ; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Runkles, 81, Okla. 106, 197 Pac. 153 ; Lawton National Bank v. Ulrich, 81 Okla. 159 , 197 Pac. 167 ; Stinchcomb v. Oklahoma City, 81 Okla. 102 , 197 Pac. 487 ; Harrison v. M. Koehler Co., 82 Okla. 26 , 198 Pac. 295 ; Obialero v. Henryetta Speller Co., 82 Okla. 274 , 200 Pac. 143 ; Russell & Washington v. Robertson, 82 Okla. 283 , 200 Pac. 150 ; Incorporated Town of Kusa v. Bouggous, 82 Okla. 204 , 200 Pac. 154 : W. G. Brown v. C. M. Eddings, 88 Okla. 30 , 210 Pac. 1021 .
'For the reason stated,' the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.
JOHNSON, O. J., and MÍcNEILL, KEN-NAMER-, and HARRISON, JJ., concur.'