In re STATE

In re STATE
1918 OK 136
171 P. 475
69 Okla. 187
Case Number: 8322
Decided: 03/05/1918
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In re STATE.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Briefs-- Reversal.
Where plaintiff in error has completed his record and filed it in this court and has served and filed a brief, in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for such failure, the court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment may be sustained; and, where the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, the court may reverse the judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff in error or the rights of the parties.

Error from County Court, Bryan County; J. L. Rappolee, Judge.

Application of the State of Oklahoma for confiscation of 100 gallons of whisky, two automobiles, one wagon and one team, one wagon sheet, and one skillet and one set of tug harness, with interpleader and claim by Mrs. H. McInnes and the Coalgate State Bank. From a judgment of confiscation. Mrs. H. McInnes brings error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

George Trice, for plaintiff in error.

HOOKER, C.

¶1 The county attorney of Bryan county filed his petition duly verified in the county court of Bryan county on November 4, 1915, seeking to confiscate certain personal property, among which was the wagon and team involved in this appeal.

¶2 Notice of hearing was served on the same day upon several parties in whose possession the property was found at the time of its seizure, and on November 18, 1915, one Mrs. H. McInnes interpleaded and claimed the wagon and team as her own, and that if it was being used for any purpose in violation of law, it was without her knowledge and consent, and likewise the Coalgate State Bank interpleaded and asserted a mortgage lien upon the same, and that it had never given its consent and was without knowledge that the same was to be used in violation of law. Mrs. McInnes and the bank asked that the property be returned to them. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and a judgment rendered, confiscating said property to the state and denying to Mrs. McInnes and the bank the relief sought by them.

¶3 The evidence fails to connect the property involved with any unlawful use.

¶4 Mrs. McInnes has appealed here and has briefed the questions of law involved, but the county attorney has filed no brief, nor has he sought any time within which to file one, and, inasmuch as the contentions urged by the brief of the attorney for the interpleader seem to be well taken and supported by authority, this cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial, on account of the failure of the county attorney to brief said cause.