One Liberty Roadster v. State Ex Rel. Tate

Supreme Court of Alabama

One Liberty Roadster v. State Ex Rel. Tate

89 So. 273, 206 Ala. 110, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 31

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 19, 1921

Docket6 Div. 277.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 So. 273 (One Liberty Roadster v. State Ex Rel. Tate) 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

One Liberty Roadster v. State Ex Rel. Tate, 89 So. 273, 206 Ala. 110, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 31 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] It does not appear that the testimony in this case was heard orally by the trial court, and hence the finding of that court is not supported by any consideration of its superior facilities for estimating tbe credibility of the testimony offered.

[2] In view of tbe proper and legal use made of this ear by Howard on previous occasions, when borrowed by Mm from Mrs. Glass for tbe same ostensible purpose, we do not think she was put upon notice that he might use it differently and illegally on the occasion in question, merely because she knew of his previous offense in the use of his own car. The facts of this case, in substance and legal effect, are not distinguishable from those exhibited in the recent case of In re Gattina, 203 Ala. 517, 84 South. 760, wherein the evidence was held insufficient to support a decree of condemnation.

[3] While the law should be strictly enforced by the courts, it must not be so harshly administered as to work a condemnation of property upon the mere suspicion of its owner’s connivance in its unlawful use.

Let the judgment of condemnation be reversed, and a judgment here rendered in favor of the claimant.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLEDLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] It does not appear that the testimony in this case was heard orally by the trial court, and hence the finding of that court is not supported by any consideration of its superior facilities for estimating tbe credibility of the testimony offered.

[2] In view of tbe proper and legal use made of this ear by Howard on previous occasions, when borrowed by Mm from Mrs. Glass for tbe same ostensible purpose, we do not think she was put upon notice that he might use it differently and illegally on the occasion in question, merely because she knew of his previous offense in the use of his own car. The facts of this case, in substance and legal effect, are not distinguishable from those exhibited in the recent case of In re Gattina, 203 Ala. 517, 84 South. 760, wherein the evidence was held insufficient to support a decree of condemnation.

[3] While the law should be strictly enforced by the courts, it must not be so harshly administered as to work a condemnation of property upon the mere suspicion of its owner’s connivance in its unlawful use.

Let the judgment of condemnation be reversed, and a judgment here rendered in favor of the claimant.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLEDLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 273, 206 Ala. 110, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-liberty-roadster-v-state-ex-rel-tate-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack