Cox v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co.
COX Et Al. v. DEMPSTER MILL MFG. CO.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by RITTENHOUSE, C.
This is an appeal from the county court of Stephens county. There was judgment for plaintiffs in error, and a motion for new trial was sustained, from which ruling sustaining the motion for new trial plaintiffs in error have properly perfected an appeal to this court. They have served and filed a brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered *704 any excuse for its failure to do so. We have examined the record, and the brief appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, and under the numerous authorities of this court, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained, but may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition of plaintiffs in error.
Phillips v. Rogers, 30 Okla. 99 , 118 Pac. 371 .
The judgment is therefore reversed and remanded.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.