State v. Stephens
Decision Date | 11 June 1921 |
Docket Number | 23,029 |
Citation | 198 P. 1087,109 Kan. 254 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. R. L. STEPHENS, Defendant, MELVILLE T. ROTHCHILD AND JOHN L. LITTLE, Interpleaders, Appellants |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1921.
Appeal from Cherokee district court; FRANK W. BOSS, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. LIQUOR LAW--Transportation of Liquor in Automobile--Forfeiture of Automobile--Rights of Innocent Mortgagee. Chapter 217 of the Session Laws of 1919, which declares that automobiles used in the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors are common nuisances and provides for their condemnation and forfeiture, is not susceptible of an interpretation that the interest of an innocent holder of a chattel mortgage on an automobile used in violation of the statute is to be preserved from such condemnation and forfeiture. The forfeiture of such interest is merely an incident to the proper and effective execution of the forfeiture declared by the statute.
2 SAME. Chapter 217 of the Session Laws of 1919 contains no constitutional infirmity because the interest of an innocent holder of a chattel mortgage on an automobile is not preserved from forfeiture when the automobile itself is adjudged to be a common nuisance and forfeited according to the statute, following The State v. Peterson, 107 Kan. 641, 193 P. 342, and Grant Co. v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, January 17, 1921 (41 S.Ct. 189).
3. SAME.--"One Isolated Instance of Violation of Statute"--No Exemption of Auto from Forfeiture. The contention that the automobile was only used unlawfully in "one isolated instance of violation of the statute," is not sustained by the evidence; and even if so, no exemption from forfeiture on that account can be fairly discovered in the all-inclusive language of the statute declaring that an automobile thus unlawfully used for the transportation of intoxicating liquors is a common nuisance and subject to forfeiture.
C. A. McNeill, Leo Armstrong, both of Columbus, and John W. Creekmur, of Chicago, Ill., for the appellants.
Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, and Don H. Elleman, county attorney, for the appellee.
This appeal is taken by the holders of a chattel mortgage on an automobile which was condemned and forfeited as a nuisance under chapter 217 of the Session Laws of 1919.
The defendant was arrested and pleaded guilty on the first and third counts. The automobile was seized by the sheriff and the proper preliminary steps prescribed by the statute were taken to forfeit the automobile.
Within time, the appellants, Rothchild and Little, of Chicago, Ill., a firm which deals in chattel mortgages on automobiles, were permitted to interplead, claiming that they held a valid and duly recorded chattel mortgage on the automobile, and that they had neither knowledge nor notice that the automobile was being used or had been used for the unlawful transportation of liquors; and that the chattel mortgage by its terms provided that the mortgagor should not remove it from Tulsa county, Oklahoma, and that in case of such removal or if the mortgagee should "fear removal," the right of immediate possession of the automobile inured to the mortgagee, etc.
The findings and judgment of the trial court (abridged) read:
etc.
The interpleaders appeal, contending that the statute does not contemplate the forfeiture of the interest of an innocent chattel mortgagee, that if so construed the statute violates the fourteenth amendment, and that the court erred in finding that the automobile was a nuisance and in forfeiting it as such.
Touching these points in order, it would seem that there is scarcely room for two opinions touching the legislative intention. Section 1 of the statute (chapter 217, Laws of 1919) reads:
"All automobiles, vehicles and other property used in the transportation or carrying of intoxicating liquors into this state or in carrying and transporting intoxicating liquors from one place to another within this state are hereby declared to be common nuisances."
Sections 2 and 3 of the act relate to the procedure for the seizure, notice, condemnation and forfeiture of automobiles (and other property) unlawfully used in violation of the intoxicating-liquor law. In part, section 3 also provides:
"At or before the time fixed by notice, any person claiming an interest in the vehicles, automobiles or other property seized, may file his answer in writing, setting up his claim thereto, and shall thereupon be admitted as a party defendant to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chapman v. Boynton
...775, 236 P. 647. For section 4, see the following: Section is constitutional, State v. Peterson, 107 Kan. 641, 193 P. 342; State v. Stephens, 109 Kan. 254, 198 P. 1087; interest of a bona fide mortgagee is forfeitable, State v. Peterson, 107 Kan. 641, 193 P. 342; State v. Stephens, 109. Kan......
-
Van Oster v. State of Kansas
...its forfeiture and sale. The Kansas Supreme Court in this, as in other cases, State v. Peterson, 107 Kan. 641, 193 P. 342; State v. Stephens, 109 Kan. 254, 198 P. 1087, has construed this act as authorizing the forfeiture of the interest of an innocent owner or lienor in property intrusted ......
-
State v. Thornson
...the transportation. That this was the first or isolated use of the auto for unlawful transportation is not of consequence. State v. Stephens, 109 Kan. 254, 198 P. 1087. 2. The provision in the statute for forfeiture is not unconstitutional as denying due process. Van Oster v. Kansas, 47 S. ......
-
National Bond & Investment Co. v. Gibson
...in this case. The Supreme Court of the state has directly upheld the same. State v. Peterson, 107 Kan. 641, 193 P. 342; State v. Stephens, 109 Kan. 254, 198 P. 1087. That these decisions are conclusive, in so far as any claimed violation of the Constitution of the state is concerned, there ......