Legal Opinion

Filson v. the Territory of Oklahoma

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 6, 1901PublishedCited by 26 opinions

Error from ihe District Court of Canadian County; before C. F. Irwin, Trial Judge.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of tbe court by

BueRORD, 0. J.:

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the district court of Canadian county for the larceny of a set of double harness. The jury found the value of the property to be $21, and returned a verdict finding the prisoner guilty of grand larceny, and judgment' was rendered on the verdict. From this judgment the prisoner appeals.

It is contended by counsel for plaintiff in error, that the true rule for determining value of stolen property is the market value of the goods taken at the time, and place of the alleged larceny. There is no room for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Coyle and Smith v. BaumSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Murphy v. State of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  2. O. K. Transfer & Storage Co. v. NeillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  3. Lefthand v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1965
  4. C. O. G. Railroad Co. v. DeperadeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
  5. Carson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API