State v. One Packard Automobile

1918 OK 201, 172 P. 66, 68 Okla. 108, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 301
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided April 9, 1918·No. 8644·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MILET, J.

On April 27, 1916, L. P. Smart, sheriff of Craig county, Okla., arrested without a warrant J. Sha'w and. Judge Hatfield, who were unlawfully conveying certain intoxicating liquors in his presence, and seized the liquors and the automobile in which the same were being conveyed. Return having been made to the county court of Craig county, one William Reed appeared at tile time fixed for the hearing, claimed to be the owner of the automobile, and asked that same be ordered delivered to him, alleging that the same was not subject to seizure and forfeiture. The contention of the claimant was sustained, a-ni judgment rendered directing this automobile to be delivered to him, from which the state has appealed.

While the question was irregularly raised in the court below, yet since the automobile was not subject to seizure and forfeiture upon authority of One Cadillac Automobile v. State of Oklahoma, 68 Okla. 116, 172 Pac. 62, this day decided, the judgment complained of should be affirmed.

Ail the Justices concur, except BRETT, J., who dissents.

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

State v. One Packard Automobile, 1918 OK 201, 172 P. 66, 68 Okla. 108, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 301 (Okla. 1918).

1918 OK 201 (State v. One Packard Automobile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

One Hudson Super-Six Automobile v. State
1918 OK 287 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)