State v. One Packard Automobile

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State v. One Packard Automobile

1918 OK 201, 172 P. 66, 68 Okla. 108, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 301

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 9, 1918

Docket8644

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1918 OK 201 (State v. One Packard Automobile) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 201, 172 P. 66, 68 Okla. 108, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-one-packard-automobile-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack