People v. One 1957 Ford 2-Door Sedan
| Decision Date | 26 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. CGL,CGL |
| Citation | 325 P.2d 676,160 Cal.App.2d 797 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. ONE 1957 FORD 2-DOOR SEDAN, License775, Serial No C7LT110571, Defendant. Associates Discount Corporation, Legal Owner, Respondent and Appellant. Civ. 22854. |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Carl Boronkay, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant and respondent, the People.
Buchalter, Nemer, Coyle & Cooper, Leon M. Cooper, Los Angeles, for respondent and appellant, Associates Discount Corp.
The People of the State of California sought by the instant action to forfeit the right, title and interest of the registered and legal owners of a certain 1957 Ford 2-door Sedan because of its use for the transportation of narcotics in violation of Section 11610 of the Health and Safety Code.
The answer of Associates Discount Corporation, the legal owner, sets forth as an affirmative defense that it made a reasonable investigation as to the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchasers and that such investigation disclosed no facts upon which to base a suspicion that said automobile would be used to transport narcotics; that said automobile was sold upon a conditional sales contract under the terms of which upon purchaser's default the entire unpaid amount has been declared due and payable; that there remains due, owing and unpaid on said contract the sum of $3,112.55; and that at the date of the seizure by the People of the State of California and ever since that date the value of said automobile has not exceeded said sum of $3,112.55; that the proceeding instituted by the State should therefore be dismissed and the court should make its order releasing said vehicle to the 'answering claimant as the bona fide and innocent lien holder and vendor'.
The parties stipulated as the trial that the conditional sales contract was entered into by the Valled Automotive Center and was assigned to Associates Discount Corporation in the usual course of business without any knowledge by either that the car was going to be used for any unlawful purpose; and that the unpaid balance on the contract was at the time of the seizure of the automobile $3,112.55, which was then, and ever since has been, in excess of the value of the vehicle.
The court found that 'said vehicle was on the 27th day of December, 1956, unlawfully used to transport and convey * * * a narcotic' in violation of Health and Safety Code, Section 11610; that at said time the vehicle was being used by William Henry Rodgers, one of the registered owners. The registered owners have not appealed from the judgment.
The court concluded that the legal owner 'did establish that its interest in the above described vehicle was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser and without knowledge that the vehicle was being or was to be used for the purpose charged'; and adjudged that said vehicle 'be, and the same is hereby, forfeited to the State of California, subject to the right, title and interest of Associates Discound Corporation, legal owner of the above described vehicle'.
Both the People and the legal owner have appealed. We will first consider the appeal by the People of the State of California from the portion of the judgment 'which declares that the forfeiture of the above vehicle shall be subject to the right, title and interest of the legal owner'. The ground urged for reversal is that 'the evidence does not support the finding of the trial court that the interest of the lien claimant was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser'.
As urged by appellant, the lien claimant had the burden of proving an investigation of the automobile purchaser's moral responsibility, character and reputation, of the kind and to the extent required by statute. In addition to the usual information about financial status, such investigation should elicit the purchaser's reputation and standing in the community and his moral responsibility. Inquiry should be made not only as to present financial position, but also as to the source of income, manner of living, employment, family and social connections. People v. One 1939 Buick 8 Coupe, 43 Cal.App.2d 411, 416, 110 P.2d 1013; People v. One 1953 Pontiac, 135 Cal.App.2d 195, 199, 286 P.2d 885.
The purpose of the law is to require one who finances the purchase of an automobile to aid in the prevention of crime. His interest in any vehicle used to transport narcotics will be forfeited to the State unless a reasonable investigation of the purchaser's moral responsibility, character and reputation is made before such interest is created. The investigation required for this purpose is something more than that usually made before the sale of a television, stove, or other commodity not ondinarily used in the commission of crime. What investigation is reasonable must be governed by the facts of each case.
Whether the investigation made before the purchase of the conditional sale contract now engaging our attention was a reasonable one is primarily a question of fact, and the determination thereof will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by any substantial evidence. Such investigation includes inquiries made by both the seller of the automobile and the buyer of the contract. People v. One 1953 Ford Sedan, 146 Cal.App.2d 183, 188, 303 P.2d 832; People v. One 1949 Ford Tudor Sedan, 115 Cal.App.2d 157, 164, 251 P.2d 776.
The evidence in the instant proceeding includes four documentary exhibits and the testimony of five witnesses. It is here summarized in the light most favorable to the lien claimant.
The two registered owners were husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. One 1953 Buick 2-Door
...said, was 'to require one who finances the purchase of an automobile to aid in the prevention of crime' (People v. One 1957 Ford 2 Door Sedan, 160 Cal.App.2d 797, 801, 325 P.2d 676, 678; see also People v. One 1940 Ford V 8 Coupe, 36 Cal.2d 471, 475, 477, 224 P.2d 677), the Legislature in 1......
-
Wardrop v. City of Manhattan Beach
... ... At the time of trial in March, 1957, almost three years from the time of her infection, her ... It appears that passengers and other people boarded the vessel at Shanghai, the latter for the purpose ... ...
-
People v. One 1959 M. G. Sport Coupe
...before the creation of the lien (People v. One 1950 Pontiac Sedan, 153 Cal.App.2d 15, 313 P.2d 863; People v. One 1957 Ford 2-Door Sedan, 160 Cal.App.2d 797, 325 P.2d 676); and it became well established in our law that before such a lienholder could defend against the forfeiture of his int......
-
People v. One 1955 Ford Crown Victoria, FRU
...existed at the time the investigation was made. People v. One 1953 Pontiac, 135 Cal.App.2d 195, 286 P.2d 885; People v. 1957 Ford 2-Door Sedan, 160 Cal.App.2d 797, 325 P.2d 676; People v. One 1954 Chevrolet Bel Air, 140 Cal.App.2d 934, 296 P.2d 55; People v. One 1949 Ford Tudor Sedan, 115 C......