One Dodge Touring Car v. State

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

One Dodge Touring Car v. State

1924 OK 35, 222 P. 662, 97 Okla. 21, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1027

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 15, 1924

Docket14391

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1924 OK 35 (One Dodge Touring Car v. State) 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

One Dodge Touring Car v. State, 1924 OK 35, 222 P. 662, 97 Okla. 21, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1027 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

STEPHENSON C,.

Heretofore the county attorney of Pawnee county caused to be filed a forfeiture proceeding-in the name of the state of Oklahoma, against one Dodge touring car, alleged to have been unlawfully used in the transporting of intoxicants. Art Estes intervened in the cause as the owner of the car. In a trial of the' cause judgment went in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants for *22 forfeiture. Tile defendants have appealed the cause to this court and assign several grounds as error for reversal. The Attorney General, joined by the county attorney, has filed a confession of error in the cause in the following language:

“Gomes now the state of Oklahoma, by John Strosnider, county attorney of Pawnee county, and the Attorney General, and confesses error in the judgment of the court below in the following particulars, to wit:

‘■Xfirst. That an action for the forfeiture of -the prohibitory laws of the state of Oklahoma is an- ' action in rem; and in order that the court may have jurisdiction of such an action it must appear that the property was seized by the officer under process of the court or by virtue of section 3017, Rev. Laws 1910; taken before the court by means of process of the court; trial had 'before a jury; and the order of the court adjudging such property forfeited as in use in violation of the prohibitory laws of the state of Oklahoma. See Keeter v. State ex rel. Sayre, County Attorney, 82 Okla. 89, 198 Pac. 866; One Hudson Super-Six Automobile v. State, 77 Okla. 130, 187 Pac. 806;

“Second. It must also be proved that the automobile was used in transporting prohibited liquor from one place in the state to another and in failure to introduce such evidence on the part of the state, and the claimant at the close of the said evidence demurs thereto, it is the duty of the trial court to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the action. See Keeter v. State, supra.

“The defendant in error confesses error in the jurisdiction and trial of the cause in the court below in the above particulars and confesses hereby the petition in error filed herein subject to the approval of the court.”

We are in accord with the rules of law therein stated and apnlied to the record in this cause. ■

Therefore, it is recommended that this cause be reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss.

By the Court: Tt is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

STEPHENSON C,.

Heretofore the county attorney of Pawnee county caused to be filed a forfeiture proceeding-in the name of the state of Oklahoma, against one Dodge touring car, alleged to have been unlawfully used in the transporting of intoxicants. Art Estes intervened in the cause as the owner of the car. In a trial of the' cause judgment went in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants for *22 forfeiture. Tile defendants have appealed the cause to this court and assign several grounds as error for reversal. The Attorney General, joined by the county attorney, has filed a confession of error in the cause in the following language:

“Gomes now the state of Oklahoma, by John Strosnider, county attorney of Pawnee county, and the Attorney General, and confesses error in the judgment of the court below in the following particulars, to wit:

‘■Xfirst. That an action for the forfeiture of -the prohibitory laws of the state of Oklahoma is an- ' action in rem; and in order that the court may have jurisdiction of such an action it must appear that the property was seized by the officer under process of the court or by virtue of section 3017, Rev. Laws 1910; taken before the court by means of process of the court; trial had 'before a jury; and the order of the court adjudging such property forfeited as in use in violation of the prohibitory laws of the state of Oklahoma. See Keeter v. State ex rel. Sayre, County Attorney, 82 Okla. 89, 198 Pac. 866; One Hudson Super-Six Automobile v. State, 77 Okla. 130, 187 Pac. 806;

“Second. It must also be proved that the automobile was used in transporting prohibited liquor from one place in the state to another and in failure to introduce such evidence on the part of the state, and the claimant at the close of the said evidence demurs thereto, it is the duty of the trial court to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the action. See Keeter v. State, supra.

“The defendant in error confesses error in the jurisdiction and trial of the cause in the court below in the above particulars and confesses hereby the petition in error filed herein subject to the approval of the court.”

We are in accord with the rules of law therein stated and apnlied to the record in this cause. ■

Therefore, it is recommended that this cause be reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss.

By the Court: Tt is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 35, 222 P. 662, 97 Okla. 21, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-dodge-touring-car-v-state-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack