People v. One 1950 Mercury Sedan, Engine No. 50LA40896M, 1950 License No. 29B9130
| Decision Date | 18 March 1953 |
| Citation | 254 P.2d 666,116 Cal.App.2d 746 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ONE 1950 MERCURY SEDAN, ENGINE NO. 50LA40896M, 1950 LICENSE NO. 29B9130. Civ. 19081. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Donald D. Stoker and Stanley Zipser, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
A clothes cleaner telephoned the police department in Los Angeles that he had found two brown paper cigarettes in a coat left with him to be cleaned, and that he thought they were marihuana cigarettes. Police officers went to the cleaner's place of business, and waited for the owner of the coat to appear.
Jimmi Torres, a sixteen-year-old boy, drove up in a Mercury sedan. He, and several companions riding with him, were taken into custody.
The coat had been left to be cleaned by one of Jimmie's companions. This companion called for it, but said it was Jimmie's.
The officers searched the Mercury in Jimmy's presence, and found one brown paper cigarette in a rug doubled up on the floor of the car. Then they let everybody go but Jimmie and his companion who called for the coat.
At the police station Jimmie told the officers that he found the cigarettes in the Mercury after he had parked it on a street in Oakland. One of the officers testified on direct examination: 'I asked him if he had any more marihuana, and he said he did not.' On cross examination the officer further testified: 'I asked him if he knew these were marihuana cigarettes, and he said he did.'
In this proceeding to forfeit the automobile to the state, the trial judge found that J. J. Torres (Jimmie's father), Jimmie, and Mary Torres (Jimmie's sister), were registered owners of the automobile, and that while the vehicle was being driven by Jimmie it was used to transport marihuana, a narcotic. It was adjudged that the Mercury was forfeited to the state, pursuant to the provisions of Chap. 7, Art. 1, Div. X of the Health and Safety Code.
Jimmie and his family lived in Oakland. At the time the car was seized Jimmie had driven it to Los Angeles to visit relatives.
Jimmie's father made the down payment on the car, and monthly payments on the balance of the purchase price. This balance was advanced under a conditional sales contract assigned to Mercantile Acceptance Corporation.
Jimmie's father testified that the certificate of ownership was issued by the Motor Vehicle Department to the assignor of Mercantile Acceptance Corporation, as legal owner, and in his name and in the names of Jimmie, his son and Mary his daughter, as registered owners. He said this was done because he could not drive and the boy could.
Notice of seizure of the automobile was filed in the Superior Court December 27, 1950. A copy of the notice was mailed to the acceptance company on the same day. Answer of the acceptance company was filed January 19, 1951.
The Superior Court struck out the answer of the acceptance company because it had not been filed within 20 days after mailing of the notice of seizure. The Superior Court denied a motion under Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the acceptance company to be relieved of its default.
Grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. That it was error to strike the answer of Mercantile Acceptance Corporation, and to deny relief under Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. That the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding of forfeiture.
3. That defendant father's motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's case should have been granted.
These matters will be discussed in order.
First, the contention that it was error to strike the acceptance company's answer and to deny its motion under Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The sections of the Health and Safety Code upon which the court's action was predicated are as follows:
This presents the question: Does the failure of the legal owner of an automobile to file an answer in narcotics forfeiture proceedings within twenty days after mailing notice of forfeiture end the case so far as the legal owner is concerned?
This appears to be the plain legislative intent, if such proceedings are completed and judgment rendered before the legal owner appears.
But here answer was filed before the case was heard. In such circumstances the legal owner is entitled to his day in court. Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to just such cases as this.
The statute imposing forfeiture of automobiles used in transporting narcotics should be construed in a manner as favorable to the owner as is consistent with fair principles of interpretation. People v. One 1939 Buick Coupe, 56 Cal.App.2d 163, 132 P.2d 308; Cf. People v. One 1940 Ford V-8 Coupe, 36 Cal.2d 471, 224 P.2d 677.
Where statutes are susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would satisfy constitutional guarantees, if possible courts will uphold the legislation. People v. One 1941 Buick Sport Coupe, 28 Cal.2d 692, 171 P.2d 719.
In this case to deny the legal owner the right to appear and defend against the asserted forfeiture was to deny him due process of law. Any other construction would be to destroy the element of fairness implicit in our American system of justice. For justice is always...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Convertible Coupe
...395, 398-402, 24 L.Ed. 637; United States v. One Buick Automobile, supra, 21 F.2d 789, 791. The statement in People v. One 1950 Mercury, 116 Cal.App.2d 746, 751, 254 P.2d 666, that the driver's admissions do not bind the other claimants was unnecessary to the decision therein and is disappr......
-
People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Convertible Coupe
...affect another.' Section 3520 of the Civil Code says: 'No one should suffer by the act of another.' See People v. One 1950 Mercury Sedam, 116 Cal.App.2d 746, 751, 254 P.2d 666; Dean v. Ross, 105 Cal. 227, 231, 38 P. 912; Griffin v. Jacobsen, 17 Cal.App.2d 68, 70, 61 P.2d 350; People v. Wald......
-
Summit Care-California, Inc. v. Department of Health Services
...937, 942, 92 Cal.Rptr. 309, 479 P.2d 669; Estate of Skinker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 290, 297, 303 P.2d 745; People v. One 1950 Mercury Sedan (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 746, 749, 254 P.2d 666.) Just as the Department properly determined it would be unfair to deprive Summit of a second opportunity to con......
-
Sherman v. Hartman
...testified defendant made to her to the effect that her injury was due to pure carelessness was hearsay, see People v. One 1950 Mercury Sedan, 116 Cal.App.2d 746, 751, 254 P.2d 666, and therefore would not be binding on the hospital had it objected or moved to strike it out, the hospital's f......