Nanny v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm.
Decision Date | 02 July 1946 |
Citation | 179 Or. 274,171 P.2d 360 |
Parties | NANNY <I>v.</I> OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
See 46 Am. Jur. 33; 30 Am. Jur. 564 33 C.J., Intoxicating liquor, § 388
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County.
Wilber Henderson, of Portland, for appellant.
Glenn R. Jack, of Oregon City (with Butler & Jack on brief), for respondent.
Before BELT, Chief Justice, and KELLY, BAILEY, LUSK, BRAND and HAY, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
This is a replevin action to recover possession of 332 cases of whiskey valued at $11,010.13 alleged to be wrongfully detained by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. The cause was submitted to the court, without the intervention of a jury. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant Commission appeals.
There is no dispute as to the facts. It is conclusively established that plaintiff owned the whiskey in California; that it was stolen from him; and that without his knowledge or consent it was transported into the state of Oregon. The Commission introduced no evidence. The sole question is what legal deduction should be made from the evidence.
It appears from the uncontradicted evidence that the plaintiff J.V. Nanny, who is engaged in the wholesale liquor business in Los Angeles, under the tradename of Merchants Wholesale Company, purchased 332 cases of whiskey from the American Distillery Company for the sum of $11,010.13, as shown by his check introduced in evidence. The American Distillery Company turned the whiskey over to the Columbia Freight Lines at Sausalito, California, as evidenced by a bill of lading, dated September 7, 1945, directing delivery of the whiskey to the plaintiff at Los Angeles. While the whiskey was in transit, it was stolen and transported by truck into the state of Oregon. As soon as plaintiff learned of the theft, it was reported to the police, and the parties in possession thereof — Fred Vargas and R.J. Harrison — were, on September 17, 1945, arrested in Clackamas county, Oregon, charged with the unlawful possession and transportation of the whiskey. Two days later, Vargas and Harrison entered a plea of guilty to such charge. The state thereupon obtained an order from the court directing that the whiskey be confiscated and delivered to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. When the plaintiff learned that the whiskey had been confiscated by the Commission, he immediately asserted ownership of the same and demanded possession thereof. Upon refusal of the Commission to surrender possession of the liquor, plaintiff commenced this action.
The defendant Commission contends that the whiskey is contraband in that it was in the possession of persons who did not procure it from the Commission, but was brought into the state in violation of the law. The Commission further contends that if it should deliver this whiskey to the plaintiff it would "ipso facto make him a law violator," and therefore this possessory action cannot be maintained.
Appellant relies upon § 24-137 O.C.L.A. which makes it unlawful:
"For any person to purchase, possess, transport or import, except for sacramental purposes, alcoholic liquor except such as shall have been procured from or through the commission and except as in this act otherwise provided;" (Italics ours)
The only exception above referred to that has any application herein is that part of § 24-114 O.C.L.A. which prohibits an individual entering the state from having in his possession in excess of one quart of alcoholic liquor.
Plaintiff stresses § 24-113 O.C.L.A. which provides:
"The exclusive right to purchase, sell, have in possession for sale, import or transport * * * * * * spiritous liquor, or any alcoholic liquor containing over 17 per cent of alcohol by weight, hereby is vested in the commission." (Italics ours)
1, 2. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peters v. McKay
...absurd results should be avoided. State ex rel. Washington-Oregon Inv. Co. v. Dobson, 169 Or. 546, 130 P.2d 939; Nanny v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm., 179 Or. 274, 171 P.2d 360. We have also held that when the legislative intent, in enacting a statute, has been ascertained, it should be giv......
-
Gooch v. Rogers
...State Tax Comm., 181 Or. 244, 181 P.2d [193 Or. 191] 130; Allen v. Multnomah County, 179 Or. 548, 173 P.2d 475; Nanny v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm., 179 Or. 274, 171 P.2d 360; and Fox v. Galloway, 174 Or. 339, 148 P.2d The facts in all of the seven decisions upon which the plaintiffs depen......
-
State v. Annen
...in making an arrest or issuing a citation. Statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd results. See, Nanny v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm., 179 Or. 274, 171 P.2d 360 (1946). Our conclusion is compelled by State v. Fogle, supra. Fogle, like this case, involved a negligent homicide charge. ......
-
State v. Neel
...law. Defendant's other assignments of error are without merit. Reversed and remanded. 1 In the civil case of Nanny v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm., 179 Or. 274, 171 P.2d 360 (1946), the court stated:'* * * There are times when courts are required to look beyond the strict or literal sense of......