Fleming Automobile Co. v. State

1920 OK 336, 192 P. 434, 79 Okla. 287, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 103

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the Attorney General has filed the following confession o£ error:

“Under the holding of this court in the eases -of One Buick Car v. The State of Oklahoma, 77 Okla. 733, 188 Pac. 108, Boles v. The State of Oklahoma, 77 Okla. 310, 188 Pac. 681, and One Hudson Super Six Automobile v. State, 77 Okla. 130, 187 Pac. 806, the judgment as to the intervener, Fleming Automobile Company, will have to be reversed, as it clearly appears that said company held a valid chattel mortgage upon the automobile forfeited to the state, and was without knowledge and notice that the vehicle was being used for an unlawful purpose.”

The cause is therefore reversed.

All the Justices concur.