Our refusal to there grant declaratory relief was rested on well-established principles of deference which must always control orderly interaction of civil remedies with criminal process.Ex parte Anderson, 33 Okla. 216, 124 P. 980, 981 (1912); Ex parte Meek, supra note 39; Hinkle v. Kenny, supra note 37; see Ex parte Barnett, 180 Okla. 208, 69 P.2d 643, 644 (1937); Corley v. Adair County Court, supra note 38; Hurst v. Pitman, 90 Okla. Cr. 329, 213 P.2d 877, 882 (1950). B.

The Court of Criminal Appeals in Corley v. Adair County Court, 10 Okla. Cr. 104, 134 P. 835, 836 (1913), acknowledged this doctrine, relying upon the principle that two bodies of equal density cannot occupy the same space at the same time.Ex parte Anderson, 33 Okla. 216, 124 P. 980, 981 (1912); Ex parte Meek, supra note 10; Hinkle v. Kenney, supra note 8; see Ex parte Barnett, 180 Okla. 208, 69 P.2d 643, 644 (1937); Corley v. Adair County Court, supra note 10; and Hurst v. Pitman, 90 Okla. Cr. 329, 213 P.2d 877, 882 (1950).Reed v. Littleton, 249 A.D. 310, 292 N.Y.S. 363, 366 (1936).

And see on this point Ex parte Anderson, 33 Okla. 216, 124 P. 980, holding that the same rule applies as to the determination of the constitutionality of a criminal statute. Also see Ex parte, Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699; and Ex parte Meek, 165 Okla. 80, 25 P.2d 54, and Ex parte Barnett, 180 Okla. 208, 69 P.2d 643, appeal dismissed Barnett v. Rogers, 302 U.S. 655, 58 S.Ct. 363, 82 L.Ed. 507, rehearing denied 302 U.S. 780, 58 S.Ct. 475, 82 L.Ed. 603. In a fairly late opinion from this court by Jones, Judge, in Hurst v. Pitman, 90 Okla. Cr. 329, 213 P.2d 877, 878, it was held, paragraph two of the syllabus: