Swift v. Coulter

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Swift v. Coulter

1911 OK 209, 115 P. 871, 28 Okla. 768, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 193

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 9, 1911

Docket721

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1911 OK 209 (Swift v. Coulter) 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

Swift v. Coulter, 1911 OK 209, 115 P. 871, 28 Okla. 768, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 193 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

The plaintiff in error seeks to review the judgment of the district court of Muskogee county in an action which was pending in the United States Court for the Western *769 District of the Indian Territory, at Muskogee, at the time of the erection of the state. By virtue of section 20 of the Enabling Act (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 267), as amended March 4, 1907 (c. 2911, § 3, 34 Stat. 1286), and section 2'7 of the schedule to the Constitution, said cause was transferred to the district court of the state.

Tliree-fourths of the whole number of jurors concurring offered to return a verdict into open court in favor of the plaintiff in error. This the court declined to receive, but. directed that the jury return to their room for further deliberation, with instructions that, whatever verdict should be returned, it must be with the unanimous concurrence of the jury. The decision of this court in Pacific Mutual Insurance Co. v. Adams, 27 Okla. 496, 112 Pac. 1026, rendered at the November, A. D. 1910, term, settles this question in favor of the ruling of the trial court. The Adams ease was also followed in Choctaw Electric Co. v. Clark, ante, 114 Pac. 730, decided at the March, A. D. 1911, term of this court.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

WILLIAMS, J.

The plaintiff in error seeks to review the judgment of the district court of Muskogee county in an action which was pending in the United States Court for the Western *769 District of the Indian Territory, at Muskogee, at the time of the erection of the state. By virtue of section 20 of the Enabling Act (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 267), as amended March 4, 1907 (c. 2911, § 3, 34 Stat. 1286), and section 2'7 of the schedule to the Constitution, said cause was transferred to the district court of the state.

Tliree-fourths of the whole number of jurors concurring offered to return a verdict into open court in favor of the plaintiff in error. This the court declined to receive, but. directed that the jury return to their room for further deliberation, with instructions that, whatever verdict should be returned, it must be with the unanimous concurrence of the jury. The decision of this court in Pacific Mutual Insurance Co. v. Adams, 27 Okla. 496, 112 Pac. 1026, rendered at the November, A. D. 1910, term, settles this question in favor of the ruling of the trial court. The Adams ease was also followed in Choctaw Electric Co. v. Clark, ante, 114 Pac. 730, decided at the March, A. D. 1911, term of this court.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 209, 115 P. 871, 28 Okla. 768, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-v-coulter-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack