Edwards v. State

The present holding is in direct conflict with the case of McCormack Bros. Motor Car Co. v. State (Ala. Sup.) 102 So. 894, 6 and this case is in line with the opinion in the case of Flint Motor Car. Co. v. State, 204 Ala. 437, 85 So. 741, where the rule of duty and diligence was laid down as to a mortgagee or conditional vendor, when interposing a claim to a vehicle, which had been seized while transporting prohibited liquor. This rule merely required the' vendor or mortgagee, among other things, after the state had made out a case by showing that the vehicle was seized while transporting…