Legal Opinion
State v. Buick Coach
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided April 3, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.
In this proceeding for the forfeiture of an automobile used in the illegal transportation of intoxicating liquor (P. L., c. 144, s. 40) the question is raised whether the rights of an innocent holder of a lien upon the car are to be excepted from the forfeiture. The power to enact that they shall not be has been upheld in both federal and state courts. Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U. S. 465; Commonwealth v. Certain Motor Vehicle, 261 Mass. 504.
Tbe authority is here conceded to exist, and the only question argued is that of legislative intent.
The answer to the question is not a matter in doubt.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- United States v. One Ford Coupe AutomobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Van Oster v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Commonwealth v. Certain Motor VehicleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
3Cited by2 opinions
- New Hampshire Finance Corp. v. LaMarcheSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Commercial Credit Co. v. SwensonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940