Donahoe v. Morris

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Donahoe v. Morris

1924 OK 901, 229 P. 798, 103 Okla. 208, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 290

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 14, 1924

Docket11715

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 901 (Donahoe v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donahoe v. Morris, 1924 OK 901, 229 P. 798, 103 Okla. 208, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 290 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

This case presents no question of law to this court, although both sides have briefed it upon the theory that the second subdivision of' the statute of frauds is involved. It is purely a fact case.

There is no conflict in the testimony. The car was stolen. Plaintiff in error was one of those through whose hands it passed. All persons concerned in the handling and transfer- of stolen property are jointly and - severally liable to any person injured' thereby. The case was tried to the court without the intervention ■ of a jury, and the court found that plaintiff in error was one of thoge..through whose hands the stolen pioperty passed, and rendered judgment accordingly. This finding and judgment are amply supported by the evidence.,

The judgment of the trial court should lie in all things affirmed.

By the Court:

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

This case presents no question of law to this court, although both sides have briefed it upon the theory that the second subdivision of' the statute of frauds is involved. It is purely a fact case.

There is no conflict in the testimony. The car was stolen. Plaintiff in error was one of those through whose hands it passed. All persons concerned in the handling and transfer- of stolen property are jointly and - severally liable to any person injured' thereby. The case was tried to the court without the intervention ■ of a jury, and the court found that plaintiff in error was one of thoge..through whose hands the stolen pioperty passed, and rendered judgment accordingly. This finding and judgment are amply supported by the evidence.,

The judgment of the trial court should lie in all things affirmed.

By the Court:

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 901, 229 P. 798, 103 Okla. 208, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donahoe-v-morris-okla-1924.