Morrison v. State ex rel. Dormon, 7 Div. 955.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation251 Ala. 289,37 So.2d 196
Docket Number7 Div. 955.
PartiesMORRISON et al. v. STATE ex rel. DORMON, Deputy Solicitor.
Decision Date14 October 1948

Knox Liles, Jones & Wolf, of Anniston, for appellant.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for appellee.


This proceeding was instituted in the Circuit Court, in Equity, of Calhoun County to condemn one 1941 Chevrolet automobile for illegally transporting whisky in said county; Calhoun being a dry county.

The evidence is without dispute that at the time car was seized there was being transported therein in Calhoun County two and one-half gallons, and a portion of a pint, of corn whisky. W A. Morrison was driving the car. The testimony was taken ore tenus before the trial court, and resulted in a judgment in general terms denying the claim of the intervenor, granting the relief prayed for and ordering the automobile condemned and sold.

One T E. Liner claimed the whisky in the automobile, and testified that he had placed it in the car a short time prior to the seizure, and without the knowledge of W. A. Morrison, who testified that he did not know the liquor was in the car. W. A. Morrison further testified that the car belonged to his son Thomas J. Morrison. In explanation of his possession of the car, he testified that he lived in Wedowee but worked in Anniston, some twenty miles away; that his son Thomas lived and worked in Anniston; that another son was a senior in the Wedowee High School, and that Thomas had agreed for the younger son to use the car on the night the senior play was presented at the Wedowee High School; that he (W. A. Morrison) picked the car up in Anniston on the afternoon before the night of the play and drove it home for the use of the younger son; that the younger son used it, and that he (W. A. Morrison) was returning it to Thomas when it was seized. That Liner came to his home early in the morning to ride to Anniston with him; that he was eating breakfast when Liner arrived at his home; that Liner put the whisky in the car, covered it with a raincoat, and sat in the car until W. A. Morrison came out and got in the car and started to Anniston; that he did not know the liquor was in the car.

Thomas J. Morrison testified that he bought and paid for the car; that, as a part of the purchase price, he traded an old car which his father had given him, and paid the balance in cash through the bank. He admitted that the car was purchased in his father's name, but gave as a reason therefor the fact that he (the son) was a minor at the time. Further, he corroborated the testimony of W. A. Morrison as to the loan of the car to his brother, and the reasons for W. A. Morrison's possession. W. A. Morrison assessed the car for taxation, paid the taxes, and purchased the license tag for it. Though not all the evidence, we think the foregoing is sufficient for the purposes of the opinion.

It is insisted that the rule applying the presumption of verity to findings of the trial court on evidence taken ore tenus has no application here because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hollis v. Crittenden, 6 Div. 777.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 21, 1948 rule as here applicable, and such is our conclusion. Whether or not appellant, as argued, had been divorced from decedent, we do not [37 So.2d 196.] consider a matter of any material consequence upon this appeal. But we forego further discussion. We are of the opinion that the lower cou......
  • Lovelace v. McMillan, 3 Div. 738
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 15, 1956
    ...evidence taken ore tenus before him; and his conclusion will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong and unjust. Morrison Page 823 v. State, 251 Ala. 289, 37 So.2d 196; Aiken v. Barnes, 247 Ala. 657, 25 So.2d 849; Tsimpides v. Tsimpides, 241 Ala. 46, 1 So.2d 17. The rule in Alabama with respe......
  • Shropshire v. State ex rel. Williams, 7 Div. 22
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 16, 1950
    ...issues presented. Auburn Sales Co. v. State, 219 Ala. 360, 122 So. 463; Edwards v. State, 213 Ala. 122, 104 So. 255; Morrison v. State, 251 Ala. 289, 37 So.2d On the issues here involved the evidence is without conflict, and under the rule it is our duty to sit in judgment on that evidence.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT