
    STURM MOTOR CAR CO. v. STATE.
    No. 10440
    Opinion Filed Oct. 19, 1920.
    Error from County Court, Tulsa County; W. B. Williams, Judge.
    . Proceeding by the state to forfeit an automobile used in transporting intoxicating liquors, the Sturm Motor Co. intervening. A judgment of forfeiture was rendered, and in-tervener brings error.
    Reversed.
    Carroll, Mason & Honnold, for plaintiff in error.
    S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and W. C. Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error;
   PER CURIUM.

In this ease the Attorney General has filed the following confession of error:

“It clearly appears that the intervener in the court below, the Sturm Motor Car Company, and the plaintiff in error in this court, held a bona fide chattel mortgage on the vehicle forfeited to the state, and was without knowledge or notice that it was being used for unlawful purpose. Therefore, under the rule laid down in the case of One Buick Car v. State of Oklahoma, 77 Okla. 233, 188 Pae. 108, and the authorities therein cited, it was error, for the court below to disregard, the plea of intervention, and the judgment as to the said intervener wfii necessarily have to be reversed.”

The cause is therefore reversed.

All the Justices concur.  