Legal Opinion

McCormack Bros. Motor Car Co. v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 22, 1925No. 7 Div. 517. [fn*]PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

It is true that in the ease of Flint Motor Car Co. v. State, 204 Ala. 437, 85 So. 741, qualifying and explaining the Lexington and Crosswaite Cases there cited, we held that a mortgagee or conditional vendor was not an insurer of the subsequent conduct of the mortgagor or vendee, but we also held that, in order to overcome or rebut the prima facie ease made out by the state growing out of the seizure of a vehicle while transporting prohibited liquor, it was necessary to show, by said mortgagee or conditional vendor, that he not only did not know that said vehicle was being so used, but had…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Flint Motor Car Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. Equitable Credit Co. v. State Ex Rel. PerrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  3. Equitable Credit Co. v. State Ex Rel. PerrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Singleton v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1981
  3. Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  4. McCormack Bros. Motor Car Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API