Ex Parte Ellis

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Ellis

1908 OK 38, 94 P. 556, 20 Okla. 507, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 50

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 18, 1908

Docket22

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1908 OK 38 (Ex Parte Ellis) 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

Ex Parte Ellis, 1908 OK 38, 94 P. 556, 20 Okla. 507, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 50 (Okla. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Williams, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above.) This case is controlled by the decision in the case of Higgins v. Brown (decided at this term of court and reported in this volume) 94 Pac. 703, wherein it is held that an offense committed within the jurisdiction of the United States court of the Indian Territory, not of a federal character, prior to the admission of the state into the Union, and pending in such court at said time, is cognizable in *509 the district court of the state as successor to such court, in the county? in which the offense was committed. The district court of the county? of the state in Avhich such offense was committed has jurisdiction of this case. The offense charged being a bailable one, the relator is entitled to be discharged on reasonable bail.

The writ for the discharge of the prisoner is denied. However, if the court below fails to take jurisdiction, and enter an order allowing reasonable bail, after being advised of our conclusions, upon further application an order will be entered in this court allowing relator to be discharged upon bail in a reasonable amount.

All the Justices concur.

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

Williams, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above.) This case is controlled by the decision in the case of Higgins v. Brown (decided at this term of court and reported in this volume) 94 Pac. 703, wherein it is held that an offense committed within the jurisdiction of the United States court of the Indian Territory, not of a federal character, prior to the admission of the state into the Union, and pending in such court at said time, is cognizable in *509 the district court of the state as successor to such court, in the county? in which the offense was committed. The district court of the county? of the state in Avhich such offense was committed has jurisdiction of this case. The offense charged being a bailable one, the relator is entitled to be discharged on reasonable bail.

The writ for the discharge of the prisoner is denied. However, if the court below fails to take jurisdiction, and enter an order allowing reasonable bail, after being advised of our conclusions, upon further application an order will be entered in this court allowing relator to be discharged upon bail in a reasonable amount.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1908 OK 38, 94 P. 556, 20 Okla. 507, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-ellis-okla-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack