Piedmont Finance Corp. v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 18 November 1926
• Citation: 135 S.E. 673
• Parties: PIEDMONT FINANCE CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

135 S.E. 673

PIEDMONT FINANCE CORPORATION

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 18, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, Augusta County.

Proceeding by the Commonwealth to forfeit an automobile, seized while being used in transporting ardent spirits, on which the Piedmont Finance Corporation claimed a lien. From an order forfeiting the car, claimant brings error. Affirmed.

W. Earle Crank, of Louisa, for plaintiff in error.

John R. Saunders, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

CHICHESTER, J. The writ of error awarded in this case brings before this court for review an order entered by the circuit court of Augusta county, forfeiting to the commonwealth a Ford automobile seized while it was being used in transporting ardent spirits in that county.

The Piedmont Finance Corporation was the holder of a Hen upon the car at the time of the forfeiture, and, upon the filing of the information, filed its answer in which the allegations were accepted as true by the attorney for the commonwealth and the case was submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts, for its decision, without the intervention of a jury:

'"That the said automobile was seized on the 1st day of July, 1925, in Augusta county, Va., by Forest T. Taylor, deputy sheriff of Augusta county, Va., at which said time the said automobile was being used and engaged by L. P. Claytor in transporting ardent" spirits, and that the said automobile is now held by the said deputy sheriff by virtue of such seizure pending forfeiture proceedings against the said car.

"That the said automobile was sold by the Wayne Motor Sales Company, to L. P. Claytor on April 11, 1925, at which time a reservation of title contract, sometimes called a conditional sales agreement, was duly executed by the said vendor and the said purchaser, covering the said automobile for the balance of the purchase price amounting to $423, by which title to the said car was reserved until the said balance due should be paid in full, which said reservation of title contract was thereupon sold and assigned and duly transferred.

"That the said Piedmont Finance Corporation is now the holder and owner of the said lien, and that there is now a balance due thereon of $370.31.

"That, at the time the said reservation of title contract was acquired by the said Piedmont Finance Corporation, it diligently inquired as to whether the said purchaser was then suspected of violating the prohibition law, and that it received no information that he was then so suspected.

"That the said contract expressly stipulated that the said car should not be used in the transportation of ardent spirits during the life of the said lien.

"That on the 8th day of May, 1925, the motor vehicle commissioner of Virginia issued to L. P. Claytor a certificate of title for the said car which said certificate showed a lien on the said car for $423 in favor of the said Piedmont Finance Corporation, of Louisa, Va., and that the said certificate of title was duly delivered to the said lienor, and is now held by it.

"That the said L. P. Claytor resided in the county of Augusta, Va., and that the said conditional sales agreement was not recorded in said county, or elsewhere, except in the office of the said motor vehicle commissioner, in accordance with chapter 308, Acts of Assembly 1924.

"That the said lienor was ignorant of the illegal use to which the said car was put, and that such illegal use was without its connivance or consent, express or implied.

"That the value of said car is $370.31."

The contention of the commonwealth is that the failure to record the conditional sales contract in the county of Augusta is a bar to the relief of the lienor from the forfeiture, because the Prohibition Act (section 28 of chapter 407, Acts 1924) provides that, whenever any automobile, etc., is seized while transporting ardent spirits it "shall be forfeited to the commonwealth" (italics supplied), etc., and then it provides, in order to defeat forfeiture the lienor (or owner) must show to the satisfaction of the court: (1) That he was ignorant of the illegal use to which the vehicle was put; (2) that its illegal use was without his connivance or eon-sent, express or implied; (3) that such lienor has, prior to the commission of such offense duly recorded in the county or corporation in which the debtor resides, the instrument creating such Ken (italics supplied); and (4) that said innocent owner has perfected his title to the vehicle, If the same is an automobile, by proper transfer In the office of the secretary of the commonwealth as provided by law—then such court shall have the right to relieve such owner or lienor from the forfeiture herein provided.

The lienor, while coming within the provisions of the act in all other respects, failed to comply with the third requirement thereof.

His contention is that this provision of the act was repealed by an act of the General Assembly which was approved on the same day the Prohibition Act was approved (March 20, 1924) but which became effective a few days later, to wit, on July 1, 1924, which provides for the registration of the title to motor vehicles, and reads as follows:

"Said certificate of title when issued by the secretary of the commonwealth showing a lien or incumbrance shall be deemed adequate notice to the public that a lien against the motor vehicle exists and the recording of such reservation of title in the county or city wherein the purchaser resides or elsewhere is not necessary and shall not be required. The charge for each original certificate of title so issued and registration of such motor vehicle shall be one dollar." Section 2.

The learned trial judge fully answered this contention in the order forfeiting the car where it is said:

"And the court, after hearing argument, being of opinion that the Motor Vehicle Act applies to the civil rights of the parties, whereas the Prohibition Act applies to the violation of the law, and that the acts are not in conflict, and that the said Prohibition Act, with reference to the recordation of liens, is in no way repealed by the said Motor Vehicle Act, and that therefore the said lien is not. properly recorded so as to entitle the said lienor to relief from...