Harvell v. State Ex Rel. Sanford

179 So. 233, 235 Ala. 329, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 49
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedFebruary 17, 1938
Docket7 Div. 492.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 179 So. 233 (Harvell v. State Ex Rel. Sanford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harvell v. State Ex Rel. Sanford, 179 So. 233, 235 Ala. 329, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 49 (Ala. 1938).

Opinion

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

• The bill in this case was filed under section 4619 of the Code to abate a liquor nuisance. It charges:

“Said respondent, within six months last past, has maintained, or aided in maintaining, and is now maintaining, or aiding in maintaining, a liquor nuisance, as defined by section 4619 of the Code of Alabama, in that said respondent is engaged in, and has been engaged in, keeping, storing, selling, bartering, or otherwise unlawfully disposing of, prohibited liquors or beverages on certain premises in Calhoun County, Alabama.”

We cannot agree to the contention of counsel for appellant that section 4619 of the Code of 1923 was repealed by section 61, page 85, Gen. Acts Extra Session 1936-37. Whether said act repeals so much of the law as makes the bare possession of prohibited liquors in dry counties unlawful, we'are not called upon to decide, ■for conceding that it does not, such'bare possession does not in and of itself amount to a nuisance as defined by section 4619. And the present bill of complaint proceeds upon the theory that the respondent was disposing of, or keeping, or storing prohibited liquor for the purpose of unlawfully disposing of same.

The evidence was ore tenus, or partly so, and, when such is the case, the conclusion of the trial court is like unto the verdict of a jury an,d will not be disturbed by this court unless contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and this rule, applies to cases in equity as well as law. A careful consideration of the evidence warranted a reasonable inference, as found by the trial court, that the respondent was in the possession of prohibited liquors for the purpose of unlawfully disposing of same.

The record discloses no reversible error and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ-, concur.

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

Related

Taylor v. State Ex Rel. Adams
155 So. 2d 595 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Espey v. State ex rel. Nicol
105 So. 2d 93 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Thompson v. State
99 So. 2d 198 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1957)
Smith v. State ex rel. Sullinger
90 So. 2d 225 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Cooley v. State
77 So. 2d 488 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Aiken v. Barnes
25 So. 2d 849 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1946)
Klein v. State Ex Rel. Evans
189 So. 771 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
Gizler v. State Ex Rel. Green
189 So. 556 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 So. 233, 235 Ala. 329, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvell-v-state-ex-rel-sanford-ala-1938.