Legal Opinion

Seay v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided January 17, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPrentis, C. J.

Leo N. Seay complains of a judgment finding that his automobile is forfeited to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and directing that it be sold, because at the time it was searched ardent spirits were found therein *984which were being illegally transported in violation of section 28 of the prohibition statute, Acts 1926, page 421, chapter 231.

The pertinent and controlling words of that statute are: “When any officer charged with the enforcement of this law shall have reason to believe that ardent spirits are being transported in any wagon, boat, buggy or automobile, or other vehicle, whether of like…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Coe v. ErrolSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. United States v. SlusserDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1921
  3. Hughes Brothers Timber Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Carey v. State Ex Rel. AlmonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  5. State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dixon v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
  2. State v. AldrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1961
  3. One Chrysler Roadster v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1929
  4. Patterson v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1948
  5. Newman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API