People v. Gale , No. 18904.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation339 Ill. 162,171 N.E. 186
Decision Date17 April 1930
Docket NumberNo. 18904.
PartiesPEOPLE v. GALE.

339 Ill. 162
171 N.E. 186

PEOPLE
v.
GALE.

No. 18904.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1930.


Commissioner's Opinion.

An information was filed against Orville Gale charging him with possessing an automobile with an altered engine number. From an order releasing the automobile to another claiming to be the owner, Gale appeals.

Reversed.


[339 Ill. 163]Appeal from Fulton County Court; Charles Schaefer, Judge.

[171 N.E. 187]


Claude E. Chiperfield, B. M. Chiperfield, and Robert B. Chiperfield, all of Canton, for appellant.

E. E. Black, of Pekin, and Glenn Ratcliff, of Lewistown, for the People.


PARTLOW, C.

Appellant, Orville Gale, prosecutes this appeal from an order of the county court of Fulton county releasing to Harold Isenburg a Ford automobile claimed to be owned by Isenburg.

On January 10, 1927, an information was filed in the county court of Fulton county charging appellant with possessing this automobile with an altered engine number, and he gave bond for his appearance. On January 21, 1927, on petition of the state's attorney, the county court entered an order impounding the automobile with the sheriff until the trial. At the March term, 1927, appellant filed a petition [339 Ill. 164]for a change of venue from the county judge. The county judge of Tazewell county was called in to try the case, but it was not tried at that term of court. On December 19, 1927, Isenburg filed a petition for the release of the automobile from the impounding order. A notice of the filing of the petition was served on the state's attorney, and the hearing was set for December 29, 1927. A copy of this notice was served on the attorneys for appellant. The notice stated that a petition had been filed for the release and surrender of the automobile. On the day of the hearing the attorneys for appellant appeared and told the court that neither they nor appellant would appear, for the reason that no legal or valid notice had been given of the pendency of the petition, and that the court was without jurisdiction of the necessary parties. The attorneys for appellant then withdrew and the court proceeded to hear the case. The order found that notice of the filing of the petition and of the time and place of the hearing was served upon the attorneys of record for appellant on December 28, 1927; that notice had been served upon the state's attorney, who appeared at the trial; that the court heard evidence and found that Isenburg was the owner and entitled to the possession of the automobile; that it should be released from the impounding order and possession surrendered to Isenburg; and that the original motor number had been altered or obliterated.

Section 35 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, c. 121, § 236) makes it a misdemeanor to own or have the custody or possession of a motor vehicle, the original engine number of which has been destroyed, removed, altered, covered or defaced. It provides: ‘It shall be the duty of every sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, chief of police or other peace officer in this State having knowledge of a motor vehicle, the engine number of which has been destroyed, removed, covered, altered or defaced, to immediately seize and take possession of such motor vehicle, arrest the supposed owner and custodian [339 Ill. 165]thereof, and cause prosecution to be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. It shall be the duty of the court to retain the custody of said motor vehicle pending the prosecution of the person arrested, and in case such person shall be found guilty said motor vehicie shall remain in the custody of the court until the fine and costs of prosecution shall be paid. * * * If at any time while such motor vehicle remains in the custody of the court or officer, the true owner shall appear and establish his title thereto, to the satisfaction of the court in which such prosecution is brought, the same shall be returned to such owner.’

A motion has been made by appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that section 35 of the Motor Vehicle Act makes no provision for an appeal from an order entered relative to the ownership of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Superior Coal Co. v. O'Brien, No. 26944.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 14, 1943
    ...Tax Act with respect to the assessment of taxes is an action at law or suit in chancery, there is a right of review. People v. Gale, 339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186; Christensen v. Bartelmann Co., 273 Ill. 346, 112 N.E. 686;Lavin v. Wells Bros. Co., 272 Ill. 609, 112 N.E. 271. The expression ‘ci......
  • Illinois Crime Investigating Commission v. Buccieri, No. 39957
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 19, 1967
    ...whose rights and property were affected caused the section to violate due process of law. Reaching the same result was People v. Gale, 339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186, where the court considered a section of the [36 Ill.2d 561] Motor Vehicle Act which permitted a judicial determination of the ow......
  • Hoehamer v. Village of Elmwood Park, No. 23111.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 24, 1935
    ...of the Constitution. Article 2, § 2. She cites two cases, People v. Lavendowski, 329 Ill. 233, 160 N. E. 582, and People v. Gale, 339 Ill. 162, 171 N. E. 186, in support of her argument. We do not recant what was said in those two cases, for neither of them defines the kind of and sufficien......
  • People v. One 1979 Pontiac Grand Prix Auto., No. 55567
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 29, 1982
    ...is raised for the first time in this case, this court has previously addressed related issues in prior cases. In People v. Gale (1930), 339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186, a prior statutory provision which allowed the trial court, upon demand of any person claiming to be the true owner of a seized ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Superior Coal Co. v. O'Brien, No. 26944.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 14, 1943
    ...Tax Act with respect to the assessment of taxes is an action at law or suit in chancery, there is a right of review. People v. Gale, 339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186; Christensen v. Bartelmann Co., 273 Ill. 346, 112 N.E. 686;Lavin v. Wells Bros. Co., 272 Ill. 609, 112 N.E. 271. The expression ‘ci......
  • Illinois Crime Investigating Commission v. Buccieri, No. 39957
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 19, 1967
    ...whose rights and property were affected caused the section to violate due process of law. Reaching the same result was People v. Gale, 339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186, where the court considered a section of the [36 Ill.2d 561] Motor Vehicle Act which permitted a judicial determination of the ow......
  • Hoehamer v. Village of Elmwood Park, No. 23111.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 24, 1935
    ...of the Constitution. Article 2, § 2. She cites two cases, People v. Lavendowski, 329 Ill. 233, 160 N. E. 582, and People v. Gale, 339 Ill. 162, 171 N. E. 186, in support of her argument. We do not recant what was said in those two cases, for neither of them defines the kind of and sufficien......
  • People v. One 1979 Pontiac Grand Prix Auto., No. 55567
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 29, 1982
    ...is raised for the first time in this case, this court has previously addressed related issues in prior cases. In People v. Gale (1930), 339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186, a prior statutory provision which allowed the trial court, upon demand of any person claiming to be the true owner of a seized ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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