82 So. 183 (Ala. 1919), 6 Div. 921, Maples v. State

Docket Nº:6 Div. 921
Citation:82 So. 183, 203 Ala. 153
Opinion Judge:GARDNER, J.
Party Name:MAPLES et al. v. STATE.
Attorney:William E. James, of Cullman, for appellants. J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Horace C. Wilkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Judge Panel:ANDERSON, C.J., and McCLELLAN and SAYRE, JJ., concur.
Case Date:May 22, 1919
Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Page 183

82 So. 183 (Ala. 1919)

203 Ala. 153

MAPLES et al.



6 Div. 921

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 22, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; Robert C. Brickell, Judge.

Proceedings by the State against Arch Maples and wife in which C.H. Beiker filed a petition setting up a claim to the automobile in question. From decree rendered, respondents and petitioner appeal. Affirmed.

Bill by the state of Alabama, filed by the deputy solicitor of Cullman county, against Arch Maples and Annie Maples, his wife, seeking to have declared forfeited to the state, and condemned for sale, one four-cylinder Buick touring automobile, under the provisions of the act approved January 25, 1919, entitled "An act to further suppress the evils of intemperance," etc. The bill, in substance, shows that on February 20, 1919, the automobile was seized in Cullman county by the sheriff of said county, while the same was in the actual possession of respondents--the property of one or both of them--and that when so seized it was being used for the transportation of prohibited liquors or beverages from one point to another within the state, contrary to law.

The respondents demurred to the bill upon the ground that section 13 of said act of January 25, 1919, violates several provisions of the Constitution of Alabama, which demurrer was overruled. The defendants answered, neither admitting nor denying the allegations of the bill as to the seizure of the automobile, and that it was being used for the transportation of liquor, but setting up that they had purchased the car from one Beiker, who took a mortgage thereon for $500 to secure the balance of the purchase price.

C.H. Beiker filed his petition under section 13 of the act approved January 25, 1919, setting up as his claim to the automobile mortgage executed by defendants for $500, by which title was retained in said Beiker, and that said $500 is still due and unpaid; and that under the provisions of said mortgage, the automobile having been seized under legal process, the note secured is now due, and that he has a superior right to the state of Alabama to said property. The prayer of the petition is that he (Beiker) be awarded the automobile, or, if the same is sold, that the register be ordered to pay petitioner the amount due on his mortgage out of the purchase price. The answer and petition were filed March 4, 1919.


To continue reading