Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Gordon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1945Published

1ConcurrenceBarnhill, J.

v. Gordon, 224 N. C., 304, we held that on .the record before us the petitioner was entitled to a hearing. We did not then attempt to limit or define the hearing to which it was entitled other than to call attention to the fact that this Court, at that time, had not decided whether the provision of G. S., 18-6, “the court, upon conviction of the person so arrested, shall order the liquor destroyed,” is in the nature of a forfeiture or a confiscation as contraband. The question has since been decided. S. v. Hall, 224 N. C., 314.

“Confiscate” is ordinarily used to mean a transfer of property…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McCormick v. . ProctorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. State v. . GordonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  3. Skelley v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  4. Humphrey v. . Churchill, SheriffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API