State v. Compton
| Decision Date | 22 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8198.,8198. |
| Citation | 179 S.W.2d 501 |
| Parties | STATE v. COMPTON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In November, 1942, J. H. Walker, of McAllister, Oklahoma, was arrested by a Liquor Control Board inspector in Grayson County for violation of the state liquor law. At the time of his arrest he was driving an automobile in which he was transporting ten cases of whiskey. The automobile was seized and turned over to the Sheriff of Grayson County to await the disposition of the criminal charge. Shortly thereafter Walker entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Grayson County and was fined $100 and costs. The entry on the docket of the court was "upon plea of guilty in open court defendant fined $100.00 and costs and confiscated property ordered sold." Two days later respondent Compton filed in the county court a plea of intervention challenging the jurisdiction of that court to order the automobile sold and alleging that he was the owner thereof, and that no person other than himself had any interest in the title thereto. He further alleged that the illegal use of the automobile was not for his benefit, but was without his knowledge or consent. On December 2, 1942, the court entered an order disallowing the intervention on the ground that the plea was filed too late. To that order Compton excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, but took no further steps to perfect his appeal.
On December 1, 1942, one day before the county court order was entered, Compton instituted this suit in the District Court of Grayson County alleging ownership of the automobile and seeking title and possession thereof or, in the alternative, a judgment for $700, its alleged value. The defendant named in the action was P. M. Porter, Sheriff of Grayson County. The sheriff answered setting out the facts above detailed as to the circumstances under which he came into possession of the car and alleging that he still held possession thereof in his official capacity as sheriff; that he claimed no right, title or interest therein, but was ready and willing to deliver same to any person rightfully entitled to receive it upon an order of the court having jurisdiction of the matter. Thereafter, the State of Texas intervened alleging the facts above set out with reference to the proceedings in the county court and alleging that the district court had no jurisdiction over the property in controversy. The case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury and resulted in a judgment in favor of Compton for the title and possession of the automobile and an order directing the sheriff to deliver possession thereof to him or his attorney of record. From that judgment an appeal was prosecuted by the State to the Court of Civil Appeals resulting in an affirmance of the trial court's judgment. 174 S.W.2d 977.
The State in its application for writ of error presents the case under four points, each of which alleges error of the district court in assuming jurisdiction of the subject matter. The Court of Civil Appeals considered that question from the various angles in which it is presented here by the State and overruled the contentions. We have concluded that its judgment is correct and should be affirmed, but, since our decision rests upon a different ground from that upon which that court based its decision, we find it unnecessary to consider the question of whether the judgment could be affirmed upon the theory announced in its opinion.
The proceeding in the county court was based upon the Texas Liquor Control Act. More specifically it was based upon Article 666—44, Vernon's Penal Code. That subsection of the article provides, in brief, that, if any vehicle is used for the transportation of illicit beverage, same may be seized without warrant by any representative of the Liquor Control Board or any peace officer; that such officer shall at once proceed against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Senter v. BF Goodrich Company
...has gained an advantage or defendant has suffered a disadvantage. State v. Compton, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 977, affirmed 1944, 142 Tex. 494, 179 S.W.2d 501. Also, cf. Tallent v. Fox, 1940, 24 Tenn.App. 96, 141 S.W.2d 485, where court held that plaintiff in suing for breach of warranty in ......
-
State v. Benavidez
...v. Gray, 141 Tex. 604, 175 S.W.2d 224; State V. Meyers, 328 S.W.2d 321 (Tex.Civ.App. 1959) writ ref'd n. r. e. See also State v. Compton, 142 Tex. 494, 179 S.W.2d 501; Lorance v. State, 172 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Civ.App. 1943) writ ref'd. Thus the owner or possessor of contraband sought to be for......
-
Grindstaff v. Mather, 5656.
...contract or the neglect of a duty which a party has contracted to perform. United States v. Chavez, 10 Cir., 87 F.2d 16; State v. Compton, 142 Tex. 494, 179 S.W.2d 501; Meyers v. State, 47 Tex. Civ.App. 336, 105 S.W. 48; State v. De Gress, 72 Tex. 242, 11 S.W. Justice Taft drew a clear and ......
-
Stewart v. State
...406, 407 and 408; Caneperi v. State, 169 Tenn. 472, 89 S.W.2d 164; Ambrester v. State, 172 Tenn. 144, 110 S.W.2d 332; State v. Compton, 142 Tex. 494, 179 S.W.2d 501; Art. 666-42(a) V.P.C.; 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, § 379, p. The validity of the arrest of Bayless or the existence of '......