Cotton v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cotton v. State

133 So. 65, 24 Ala. App. 219, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 216

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 17, 1931·No. 8 Div. 212.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

The evidence without dispute shows that defendant operated; a motor vehicle in this state without having paid the license required by law.. Defendant, claimed that he’ *220 was not the owner of the car,'but used it and paid rent for same to the owner. This would render defendant liable. Acts 1927, pp. 139, 160, § 19.

The provisions of the act, supra, section 19, are defensive matter which must be proven by defendant on the trial in order that he may have the benefit of the exemption.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SAMEORD, J.

The evidence without dispute shows that defendant operated; a motor vehicle in this state without having paid the license required by law.. Defendant, claimed that he’ *220 was not the owner of the car,'but used it and paid rent for same to the owner. This would render defendant liable. Acts 1927, pp. 139, 160, § 19.

The provisions of the act, supra, section 19, are defensive matter which must be proven by defendant on the trial in order that he may have the benefit of the exemption.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cotton v. State, 133 So. 65, 24 Ala. App. 219, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 216 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

133 So. 65 (Cotton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related