One Paige Touring Car, No. 92052 v. State

1921 OK 307, 200 P. 852, 83 Okla. 40, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 292
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 13, 1921
Docket9939
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1921 OK 307 (One Paige Touring Car, No. 92052 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 Paige Touring Car, No. 92052 v. State, 1921 OK 307, 200 P. 852, 83 Okla. 40, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 292 (Okla. 1921).

Opinion

KENNAJVEER, J.

W. J. McNeil prosecutes this appeal to reverse the judgment of the county court of Tulsa county forfeiting to the state of Oklahoma one Paige touring car No. 92,052. The claimant, W. J. Mjc-Neil, demanded a trial by jury, which was by the trial court refused, and the refusal of the trial court to grant a jury trial is assigned as error.

This court, in the case of Keeter v. State ex rel. Saye, County Attorney, 82 Okla. 89, 198 Pac. 866, held that" the claimant in this class of cases is entitled to trial by jury, and under the holding of the court in that case this cause must be reversed for a new trial.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the officer’s return, upon the ground that the same are insufficient to state a cause of action in favor of the state, and as this cause must be reversed upon the ground that the claimant was entitled bo a jury trial we deem it sufficient to say, with respect to the sufficiency of the information, that the better practice would be to amend the information by stating that the automobile was used to convey intoxicating liquors from one point in the state of Oklahoma to another point in the state, and if the particular place in the state from which said liquors were conveyed is unknown to the affiant, it is proper to so state.

The former opinion filed herein is withdrawn, and the cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial.

HARRISON, O. J., PITCHEORB, Y. C. J., and MILLER, ELTING, and NICHOLSON. JJ., concur.

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

Related

Brown v. State Ex Rel. Hester
1939 OK 207 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
One Chevrolet Coach Automobile v. State
1935 OK 434 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
State ex rel. Dabney v. Wm. Cameron & Co.
147 Okla. 17 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
State Ex Rel. v. Wm. Cameron Co., Inc.
1930 OK 583 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car
251 P. 701 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
One Ford Touring Car v. State
1924 OK 38 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1921 OK 307, 200 P. 852, 83 Okla. 40, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-paige-touring-car-no-92052-v-state-okla-1921.