One Hudson Super-Six Auto., Model J, No. 4197, Engine No. 39527 v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1920 |
| Docket Number | 9558. |
| Citation | 187 P. 806,77 Okla. 130,1920 OK 50 |
| Parties | ONE HUDSON SUPER-SIX AUTOMOBILE, MODEL J, NO. 4197, ENGINE NO. 39527, et al., v. STATE. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Chapter 188, Sess. Laws 1917, is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or to the seventh amendment thereof providing that "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," nor section 19 of article 2, of the Constitution of this state, that "the right of trial by jury shall be and remain inviolate," because a jury trial, as to the question whether property seized thereunder was being unlawfully used for conveying intoxicating liquors is denied.
Where under chapter 188, Sess. Laws 1917, an automobile was seized by an officer without a warrant, for being used in his presence in violation of the prohibitory laws of this state and a return by such officer was made as required by law, to the county court of the county who tried the cause and decreed a forfeiture of such car to the state and during such proceedings no issue as to the value of the car was raised or determined, it will be presumed on appeal that the trial court was clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, that the value of the car did not exceed the amount over which the court had jurisdiction.
It is a cardinal rule in the construction of statutes that the intention of the Legislature, when ascertained, must govern, and that to ascertain the intent all the various provisions of legislative enactments, upon the particular subject, should be construed together and given effect as a whole.
The holder of a valid mortgage upon personal property to secure an existing valid debt cannot forfeit the right to subject the property to the payment of his debt by an act done without his consent or connivance, or that of some person employed or trusted by him.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In replevin or an action to try the rights to property, the value thereof determines the jurisdiction of the court, and the amount of the mortgage or lien on the property cannot be used as a basis to determine jurisdiction or oust jurisdiction by way of a plea of intervention.
Sess. Laws 1917, c. 188, § 1, providing that all automobiles used in transporting any liquor, the sale of which is prohibited by the laws of the state, from one place to another in the state in violation of its laws, shall be forfeited to the state by order of the court issuing process of seizure, contemplates a seizure without a warrant in view of Rev. Laws 1910, § 3617.
Appeal from County Court, Payne County; Wilberforce Jones, Judge.
Libel proceeding by the State of Oklahoma to forfeit one Hudson Super-Six Automobile, Model J, No. 4197, Engine No. 39527, nine quarts of whisky, with intervention and claim by W. D. Peyton, as owner, and the First National Bank of Cushing, as the holder of a chattel mortgage on the automobile. Judgment of forfeiture of automobile because used in transporting intoxicating liquors, and claimants appeal. Judgment against the mortgagee reversed, and otherwise affirmed, and proceeding remanded, with directions.
Higgins & Berton, of Cushing, for plaintiffs in error.
S. P. Freeling, Atty.
Gen., and W. C. Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the 27th day of August, 1917, in the county court of Payne county, in a libel proceeding against one Hudson Super-Six automobile, No. 39527, judgment was rendered forfeiting said vehicle to the state, because of its use in transporting intoxicating liquors in violation of law. The owner of the automobile, one W. D. Peyton, who used it in the illegal transportation of liquor, and the First National Bank of Cushing, which held a chattel mortgage on said machine, intervened and contested the public's right to forfeit the same, and from the aforesaid judgment they have lodged in this court their appeal.
The record discloses: That on August 4, 1917, Peyton bought a new Hudson Super-Six automobile and traded in on the purchase price thereof another car (for which there was a mortgage), and that the First National Bank, intervener herein, took up that mortgage and honored Peyton's check for $1,150 and took a mortgage on this new car for the whole amount, $1,545.30, which mortgage was duly filed for record. That on the 10th day of August, 1917, Peyton was arrested without a warrant by the officers of Payne county. While he was transporting in this automobile a package containing nine quarts of whisky, the automobile was taken into possession of the officer and a proceeding was immediately filed in the county court to forfeit such machine. It is undisputed that no part of the indebtedness to the bank had been paid, and that the bank or its officers had no knowledge of, and did not consent to, any unlawful use of their chattel security (the automobile) by Peyton, if the same was so used. There is no conflict in the claims of the two intervenors or claimants. Peyton claims the right of possession by virtue of his ownership of the car, and the bank claims possession for the purpose of realizing on its security and collecting its debt, and asked the court, in the event a forfeiture was had, that the same be subject to the bank's mortgage, all of which claims were denied by the court below. The bank's claim was denied on the theory that the statute is directed strictly at the thing, the vehicle itself.
Proceedings in error were regularly commenced in this court by the plaintiffs in error and the assignments of error are:
(1) The court erred in overruling the separate motion of the plaintiffs in error for a new trial.
(2) Erred in admission of incompetent evidence over the objection of the plaintiffs in error.
(3) Erred in overruling demands of plaintiffs made at the commencement of the trial for a trial by jury.
(4) Erred in rendering judgment of forfeiture and confiscation from the facts found, and the judgment is contrary to law and evidence.
(5) Erred in excluding competent evidence.
(6) Erred in ordering sale of forfeited property after the giving and approving of supersedeas bond, and in not ordering a stay of the judgment as a whole.
(7) Said court had no jurisdiction to try the same.
(8) Erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff in error W. D. Peyton to the jurisdiction of the court.
The foregoing assignments of error are discussed in the brief of the parties under three specifications or propositions, the first of which is as follows:
"That chapter 188, S. L. 1917, in so far as it attempts to deprive a person of a trial by jury is repugnant to the state Constitution."
We deem it unnecessary to notice this proposition further than to say that this court, in construing said act of the Legislature, has decided adversely to the contentions of the plaintiffs in error. In the case of One Cadillac Automobile, 1918 Model, v. State, 182 P. 227, wherein it was said in paragraph 3 of syllabus of the opinion, as follows:
"Chapter 188, Session Laws 1917, is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States nor of this state, because a jury trial as to the question whether property seized thereunder was being unlawfully used for conveying intoxicating liquors is denied."
Proposition 2 is thus stated by plaintiffs in error:
We think the contentions of the plaintiffs in error under this proposition is without merit as to both grounds. As to the first ground the record discloses that the proceedings were had without reference to the value of the automobile, that is, that no testimony was offered concerning the same; that the return of the officer making the seizure placed no valuation upon the automobile; no witness testified as to the value of the same, and the trial court in his findings made no findings as to the value thereof, neither did the separate pleas of intervention filed by the plaintiffs in error in said cause place any valuation upon the car, neither do plaintiffs in error fix any value of the automobile in their brief or state what the value of the same was.
Counsel for plaintiffs in error contend that "the court having jurisdiction of the property," as used in the first line of section 2 of the Act of 1917, was evidently used by the Legislature with reference to the amount involved, and that the last portion of the same sentence, that "the court shall make such evidence as is offered in the case and determine the same as in civil cases, and that in civil cases the county court has jurisdiction concurrent with the district court in any amount not exceeding one thousand dollars," and then say:
The grounds urged are not tenable for the reason that, as in replevin or an action to try the rights of the property, the value of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Automotive v. State
... 1920 OK 50 187 P. 806 77 Okla. 130 ONE HUDSON SUPER-SIX AUTOMOBILE et al. v. STATE. Case ... No. 39527, in which W. D. Peyton, as owner, and the First ... the case of One Cadillac Automobile, 1918 Model, v. State, 75 Okla. 134, 182 P. 227, it was said ... seize one Super-Six Hudson automobile, Engine No. 39527, and that in said automobile was found ... ...