People v. One 1940 Chrysler Convertible Coupe

STURTEVANT, J.

On May 22, 1940, under a conditional sales contract, James W. McAlister, Inc., sold John Gamble a Chrysler Windsor Convertible coupé, the car in suit. The vendor assigned its contract to Pacific Finance Corporation.

On August 17, 1940, the plaintiff commenced this action to forfeit said car. The plaintiff named the car as defendant. John Gamble was served with notice and appeared and answered. Pacific Finance Corporation was also served with notice and appeared and filed a separate answer. The trial court made findings in favor of the last named defendant and against John Gamble. From the judgment entered on said findings the plaintiff appealed.

To sustain the judgment the plaintiff asserts that the Pacific Finance Corporation was bound to prove the matters set forth in section 11620 of the Health and Safety Code. That section provides: “The claimant of any right, title, or interest in the vehicle may prove his lien, mortgage, or conditional sales contract to be

bona fide

and that his right, title, or interest was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the purchaser, and without any knowledge that the vehicle was being, or was to be, used for the purpose charged.” But the plaintiff contends that the record does not show that Pacific Finance Corporation did so. That is, the plaintiff claims Pacific Finance Corporation did not prove that it made “ ... a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the purchaser. . . . ” The plaintiff concedes the trial court made a finding (Finding No. IX) in which it found the facts on each of said elements in favor of Pacific Finance Corporation, and that that finding is presumed to be correct, but, the plaintiff contends, such finding was not supported by any evidence whatever. If that contention is sound the judgment must be reversed. But if there was evidence supporting each element of fact contained in said finding the judgment must be affirmed. We think the situation last stated is shown by the record. The provision of the statute specifically applicable

[549]

is, “ ... after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the purchaser. . . . ” The matter before this court is first one of statutory construction and secondly the evidence applicable to the finding. Under ordinary rules of grammar the statute means the same as though it were written “ . . . after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, moral character, and moral reputation of the purchaser. . . . ” The ordinary rules of grammar should be followed if by applying them such interpretation does not lead to an absurdity. (23 Cal. Jur. 732, “Statutes,” sec. 110.) Words will be construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language. (Civil Code, sec. 13.) And in construing a statute due force and effect should, if possible, be given to every word. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1858.) Applying these rules, “moral responsibility,” among other things, is an attribute of one who keeps his word. By the same token “moral character” is an attribute, among others, of one who does not commit wrongful or criminal acts. And “moral reputation” is, among other things, that which others say as to one’s morals. Finally, “morals” means, among other things, “distinguishing between right and wrong” (Webster). As so understood a bank or other creditor may not be said to be unconcerned in each of said factors.