Bowling v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 755 |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 405,85 So. 500 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOWLING v. STATE. |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
Bill by the State, on the relation of its Solicitor, to condemn and sell one Hudson Super-Six automobile, alleged to have been used in transporting prohibited liquors by one M.C. Blackwell, deceased, wherein H.G. Bowling claimed the car. From a decree denying his claim and confiscating the car, Bowling appeals. Reversed, rendered, and remanded.
Hill, Hill, Whiting & Thomas, of Montgomery, for appellant.
J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
We are, of course, aware of the well-established rule that, when a cause is tried by the court without a jury and the evidence is ore tenus, or partly so, the trial court has the advantage over this court of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and its conclusion on facts is like unto the verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed by this court, unless plainly contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and that said rule applies to equity as well as cases at law. The evidence in the present case, however, fully supported the petitioner's mortgage, and was not materially controverted nor contradicted directly or inferentially. The petitioner not only proved the existence of a valid subsisting mortgage, but met the statutory requirement of negativing notice or knowledge on his part of the unlawful use of the automobile. Not only was the conclusion of the trial court contrary to the evidence, but the petitioner would have been entitled to the general affirmative charge with the hypothesis, had this been a jury case.
The trial court erred in disallowing the petitioner's claim, and the decree is reversed, and one is here rendered, granting the petitioner relief, and the case is remanded, in order that the sale of the automobile shall be made by the sheriff, so as to subject the interest of the offending party in the same, and subject to the lien of the appellant. State v. Crosswhite, 84 So. 813.
Reversed, rendered, and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salter v. Hamiter
...Duggan v. Duggan, 227 Ala. 92, 148 So. 844 (1933); Marsh v. Elba Bank & Trust Co., 205 Ala. 425, 88 So. 423 (1920); Bowling v. State, 204 Ala. 405, 85 So. 500 (1920). When the trial court "improperly applies the law to the facts, the presumption of correctness otherwise applicable to the tr......
-
Edwards v. State
...or who are not chargeable with notice or knowledge that their property is to be used for such unlawful purpose." In Bowling v. State, 204 Ala. 405, 85 So. 500,a fide, innocent, mortgagee was protected, though there was no evidence that any inquiry was made--the court, speaking through Chief......
-
Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. House of Van Praag, Inc.
... ... Co., 212 Ala. 374, 103 So. 42; Acts of 1915, p. 824; ... Ann. Code of 1928, § 9498, Marsh v. Elba Bank, 205 ... Ala. 425, 88 So. 423; Bowling v. State, 204 Ala ... 405, 85 So. 500. See, also, Bookmiller v. Jones, 216 ... Ala. 298, 113 So. 32; Hall v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, ... 96 So ... ...
-
De Moville v. Merchants & Farmers Bank of Greene County
... ... great weight of the evidence. Marsh v. Elba Bank & Trust ... Co., 205 Ala. 425, 88 So. 423; Bowling v ... State, 204 Ala. 405, 85 So. 500; Scott v ... McGriff, 222 Ala. 344, 132 So. 177; Duggan v ... Duggan, 227 Ala. 92, 148 So. 844; ... ...