Legal Opinion

City of Findlay v. Associates Investment Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1926No. 19570PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

Under Section 6212-43, General Code, when a vehicle which has been used for the transportation of intoxicating liquors in violation of law has been seized by the duly constituted authorities of a municipality, and the mayor’s court has ordered a sale by public auction of the property seized, and a sale has been held without public notice, can the mortgagee of such vehicle foreclose his mortgage upon the vehicle so seized and sold and thereby establish a lien prior to the title of the buyer at the public auction? This is the question of moment involved in this case.

The statute principally…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. DavisUtah Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Robinson Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. RatekinNebraska Supreme Court · 1920
  3. State v. PetersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920
  4. Seignious v. LimehouseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
  5. White Auto Co. v. CollinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. LilliockOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Alcorn, State's Attorney v. AlexandroviczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
  3. Sensenbrenner v. CrosbyOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. State v. PenrodOhio Court of Appeals · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API