Puckett v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Puckett v. State

85 So. 452, 204 Ala. 238, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 108

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 14, 1920

Docket1 Div. 151.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 So. 452 (Puckett v. State) 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

Puckett v. State, 85 So. 452, 204 Ala. 238, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 108 (Ala. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

This is a proceeding by the state to condemn an automobile used by the claimant’s chauffeur for the unlawful transportation of prohibited liquor in the city of Mobile, under section 13 of the act of January 25, 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 13).

We have carefully examined the evidence as presented by the bill of exceptions. There is no conflict in the evidence, and therefore no question as to the veracity of the witnesses. Construing the evidence in its every aspect most favorably for the state, we are satisfied that the automobile in question is not properly subject to condemnation as against its claimant and owner, Puckett, and that the decree of condemnation ought not to stand. Where it is shown by the owner that he neither authorized, participated in, nor consented to the unlawful act of his servant, and that he was guilty of no negligence with respect to its anticipation and prevention, the condemnation of the vehicle cannot be sustained. State v. Hughes, 203 Ala. 90, 82 South. 104. In the cases of State v. One *239 Lexington Automobile, 203 Ala. 506, 84 South. 297, and State v. Crosswhite, 203 Ala. 586, 84 South. 813, decided at this term, and in which condemnation was held proper, the evidence gave support to the inference of a want of reasonable diligence in discovering and preventing the unlawful use of the car.

Let the decree be reversed, in so far as it condemns the interest of the claimant, Puckett, to sale and forfeiture, and let a decree be here rendered in favor of said claimant.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McOLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

This is a proceeding by the state to condemn an automobile used by the claimant’s chauffeur for the unlawful transportation of prohibited liquor in the city of Mobile, under section 13 of the act of January 25, 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 13).

We have carefully examined the evidence as presented by the bill of exceptions. There is no conflict in the evidence, and therefore no question as to the veracity of the witnesses. Construing the evidence in its every aspect most favorably for the state, we are satisfied that the automobile in question is not properly subject to condemnation as against its claimant and owner, Puckett, and that the decree of condemnation ought not to stand. Where it is shown by the owner that he neither authorized, participated in, nor consented to the unlawful act of his servant, and that he was guilty of no negligence with respect to its anticipation and prevention, the condemnation of the vehicle cannot be sustained. State v. Hughes, 203 Ala. 90, 82 South. 104. In the cases of State v. One *239 Lexington Automobile, 203 Ala. 506, 84 South. 297, and State v. Crosswhite, 203 Ala. 586, 84 South. 813, decided at this term, and in which condemnation was held proper, the evidence gave support to the inference of a want of reasonable diligence in discovering and preventing the unlawful use of the car.

Let the decree be reversed, in so far as it condemns the interest of the claimant, Puckett, to sale and forfeiture, and let a decree be here rendered in favor of said claimant.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McOLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 452, 204 Ala. 238, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puckett-v-state-ala-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack