Appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing a narcotic drug and sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary.
The state’s evidence is to the effect that appellant was driving an automobile and at three o’clock in the morning he failed to stop at a stop sign on a farm to market road at the entrance to the main highway and thereby collided with an automobile driven by a boy named George James. The state’s evidence by James was that he saw a flash of lights coming toward him, the collision immediately followed and the next he remembered *218was that he got up and saw appellant lying under the edge of the car driven by appellant. Both cars had landed in the yard of a nearby residence. Several people gathered about the scene of the wreck, the first of whom testified in detail about the things he saw. Near the driver’s side of the front seat of appellant’s car was a bag of something and he smelled marihuana.
Soon thereafter an officer arrived. He examined appellant who was in a great stupor and was believed by the officer to be under the influence of a narcotic. For running the stop sign appellant was arrested. An ambulance was called and appellant was delivered by the officer to the driver of the ambulance with instructions to take him to the hospital and keep him for the officer. The officer then examined the car and found, in the bag which the witness had seen, a quantity of marihuana. This was brought into court and definitely identified as the bag which the officer took from the seat of the car and it is shown that it contained marihuana.
We find in the statement of facts and in the transcript ten bills of exception. Each of these is based on the complaint that appellant was unlawfully arrested and that the officer illegally searched the car. It is contended that all evidence as to the marihuana was inadmissible.
There can be no claim that appellant was illegally arrested. The evidence is without dispute that the search was made after the arrest. It is a settled rule that a search warrant is not necessary in order to search the person of one under lawful arrest. 38 Tex. Jur., p. 73; Tones v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 363, 88 S.W. 217, 122 Am. St. Rep. 759, 13 Ann. Cases 455, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1024. Having a right to arrest and search appellant, he also had a right to search the car. Stokes v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 35 S.W. 2d 727; Hayes v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 644, 28 S.W. 2d 556.
The second contention in appellant’s brief is that the sheriff was permitted, over objection, to testify as to the quantity of the marihuana, that is that it would make about a hundred cigarettes. This evidence, it is contended, is immaterial to the state’s case. Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence in his behalf and we are unable to understand why the contention is made that it was harmful to his defense. It may be immaterial to the prosecution but it would likewise be immaterial to the defense. His guilt does not depend upon quantity. We *219see in it no reversible error. None appearing of record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.