Wallace v. Crowley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Wallace v. Crowley

1934 OK 434, 35 P.2d 887, 169 Okla. 25, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 219

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 11, 1934

Docket22388

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK 434 (Wallace v. Crowley) 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

Wallace v. Crowley, 1934 OK 434, 35 P.2d 887, 169 Okla. 25, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 219 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the district court of Atoka county, the jury having been instructed by the trial court to return a verdict in favor of the! defendant and the judgment of the court having been rendered on that verdict.

The action- was* in replevin for the possession of an automobile which had been given away by a merchants’ association.

By the demurrer and motion for a directed verdict, the defendant admitted for the purpose of the determination thereof that the plointiff was the owner of the winning ticket. She contends that, since she was the owner of the winning ticket, she is entitled to maintain an action for, the possession of the ear which was awarded by the judges to someone in the household of the defendant. That contention cannot be sustained, for, by the testimony in the case, the car was to be awarded to the person who produced the winning ticket and handed it to the judges. The record shows that the plaintiff did not produce the winning ticket. She contends that she lost it. She admits that she did not have it at the time of the drawing.

We do not deem it necessary to enter into any extended discussion of the law of re-plevin. Neither the judges, the merchants’ association, nor the person to whom the car was awarded are parties to this action. The testimony of the plaintiff shows that she did not conform to the rules established by the judges, and it shows that the judges did not award the car to the plaintiff. There was no error in the judgment of the trial court.

The ease of Amlie Strand Hardware Co. et al. v. Moose et al., 176 Minn. 598, 224 N. W. 158, is neither persuasive nor controlling. That action was by the donor, after an error had been discovered by the judges and a corrected award made. It was not by the person who was the beneficiary of a corrected award. In the instant case there has been no error discovered and no corrected award made and the action is by one who claims to be the winner.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, O. J., CULL1S0N, Y. 0- J., and OSBORN and BAYLESS, JJ., concur.

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

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the district court of Atoka county, the jury having been instructed by the trial court to return a verdict in favor of the! defendant and the judgment of the court having been rendered on that verdict.

The action- was* in replevin for the possession of an automobile which had been given away by a merchants’ association.

By the demurrer and motion for a directed verdict, the defendant admitted for the purpose of the determination thereof that the plointiff was the owner of the winning ticket. She contends that, since she was the owner of the winning ticket, she is entitled to maintain an action for, the possession of the ear which was awarded by the judges to someone in the household of the defendant. That contention cannot be sustained, for, by the testimony in the case, the car was to be awarded to the person who produced the winning ticket and handed it to the judges. The record shows that the plaintiff did not produce the winning ticket. She contends that she lost it. She admits that she did not have it at the time of the drawing.

We do not deem it necessary to enter into any extended discussion of the law of re-plevin. Neither the judges, the merchants’ association, nor the person to whom the car was awarded are parties to this action. The testimony of the plaintiff shows that she did not conform to the rules established by the judges, and it shows that the judges did not award the car to the plaintiff. There was no error in the judgment of the trial court.

The ease of Amlie Strand Hardware Co. et al. v. Moose et al., 176 Minn. 598, 224 N. W. 158, is neither persuasive nor controlling. That action was by the donor, after an error had been discovered by the judges and a corrected award made. It was not by the person who was the beneficiary of a corrected award. In the instant case there has been no error discovered and no corrected award made and the action is by one who claims to be the winner.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, O. J., CULL1S0N, Y. 0- J., and OSBORN and BAYLESS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 434, 35 P.2d 887, 169 Okla. 25, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-crowley-okla-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack