Seminole Securities Co. v. State

134 S.E. 625, 35 Ga. App. 723, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1093
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 17, 1926
Docket17172
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 625 (Seminole Securities Co. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Seminole Securities Co. v. State, 134 S.E. 625, 35 Ga. App. 723, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1093 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. In a proceeding under section 20 of the act of March 28, 1917 (Park’s Code Supp. 1922, § 448(oooo)), to condemn a vehicle or conveyance used in transporting liquor, the sale or possession of which is prohibited by law, the burden is upon the State, the condemner, to show that the vehicle or conveyance was used in conveying the prohibited liquors or beverages with the knowledge of the owner or lessee. Lang v. Hitt, 149 Ga. 667 (101 S. E. 795) ; Citizens Trust Co. v. State, 26 Ga. App. 750 (107 S. E. 274). Accordingly, where, as in the instant case, it appears from the evidence that title to the automobile sought to be condemned was not in the person in whose possession it was at the time of its illegal use, but was in the intervener under a conditional bill of sale reserving title in the vendor thereof, and transferred to the intervener, and there being no evidence attacking the validity of the instrument, and none in anywise indicating that such owner of the automobile had any knowledge that it was being used in conveying the prohibited liquors, the judgment of condemnation was without evidence to support it. Armington v. State, 24 Ga. App. 75 (100 S. E. 15).

2. The transfer of the conditional bill of sale from the original vendor to the intervener, while not showing on its face the authority of the agent executing it for the vendor to do so, was admitted in evidence apparently without objection, and can not now be attacked for that reason as insufficient to show title in the intervener as holder. Sheffield v. Johnson County Bank, 2 Ga. App. 221 (58 S. E. 386) ; Edwards v. Camp, 29 Ga. App. 556 (116 S. E. 210), and eases there1 cited.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., coneur.

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

Related

Consolidated Loan Co. v. State
41 S.E.2d 802 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Bentley v. State of Georgia
28 S.E.2d 658 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
State v. Industrial Acceptance Corp.
139 S.E. 577 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 S.E. 625, 35 Ga. App. 723, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seminole-securities-co-v-state-gactapp-1926.