State
v.
Huppert

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
Supreme Court of OklahomaMay 15, 1917
65 Okla. 162 (Okla. 1917)
65 Okla. 162165 P. 193

No. 7477

Opinion Filed May 15, 1917.

Appeal and Error — Failure to Fire Brief — Dismissal.

Where the county attorney does not file any brief on behalf of the state on appeal, the appeal will be treated as having been abandoned and will be dismissed.

(Syllabus by Hooker, C.)

Error from County Court, Rogers County; H. Tom Kight, Judge.

Action by the State of Oklahoma to confiscate an automobile; L.A. Huppert, intervener, and claimant. Judgment for intervener, and the State brings error. Dismissed.

W.M. Hall and D.M. Battenfield, for the State.

J.I. Howard and C.B. Holtzendorff, for defendant in error.


This action was originally instituted in them county court of Rogers county by the state of Oklahoma, acting through the county attorney, to confiscate one certain automobile on account of it being used in the transportation of liquor in violation of law in said county. The proper proceedings were had for that purpose, and at the proper time L.A. Huppert intervened, claiming to hold a chattel mortgage duly recorded upon said automobile, and that, if the same was being used in transportation of liquor in violation of law, the same was without his knowledge or consent.

The cause was tried in the county court, and after the evidence for the intervener and the state was heard by the court, the jury being waived, a judgment was rendered in behalf of the intervener, directing the return of the automobile to him, from which judgment the state has appealed.

The county attorney has not filed any brief on behalf of the state, and under the rule of this court the appeal will be treated as having been abandoned, and the same is therefore dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.