Legal Opinion

Wright Motor Co. v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 14, 1926No. 6 Div. 541PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

In this case, wherein the vendor of the car sought to be condemned is an intervening claimant, the judgment of condemnation is rested upon testimony-tending to- show the reputation of the vendee— who illegally used the car — as a consumer of and dealer in contraband liquors. Other than the constructive notice to be .imputed to the claimant from such a reputation, there is nothing tending to show any knowledge on the part of the claimant, or any notice to him, that the vendee intended to, or was likely to, use the car in violation 'of the prohibition laws.

The sole question presented on this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Equitable Credit Co. v. State Ex Rel. PerrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Singleton v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1981
  2. Commercial Nat. Bank v. State Ex Rel. DormonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
  3. Parker v. State Ex Rel. EmbrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
  4. Auburn Sales Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  5. Hartzog-Ganey Motor Co. v. State Ex Rel. ReidSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API