City of Findlay v. Associates Investment Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- State v. DavisUtah Supreme Court · 1919
- Robinson Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. RatekinNebraska Supreme Court · 1920
- State v. PetersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920
- Seignious v. LimehouseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
- White Auto Co. v. CollinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. LilliockOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Alcorn, State's Attorney v. AlexandroviczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Sensenbrenner v. CrosbyOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. PenrodOhio Court of Appeals · 1992