People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe

California Court of Appeal Oct 8, 1952 No. Civ. 19005Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the lienholder failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the purchaser's moral character as required by Health and Safety Code section 11620, and that the trial court correctly excluded irrelevant testimony and inapplicable legal presumptions.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the claimant failed to perform a reasonable investigation of the purchaser's moral responsibility.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding the claimant's testimony regarding his own conclusions from his investigation.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the benefit of certain statutory presumptions under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding ordinary care and obedience to law.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is not satisfied unless the investigation uncovers the “moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser.””

“The vendor’s actual conclusion from his investigation adds nothing to his defense which must stand or fall on a showing of the extent of the inquiry made.”

“Whether appellant exercised ordinary care or whether the ordinary course of business was followed has no bearing on the issue of a reasonable investigation.”

MOORE, P. J.

One Mike Kaleel was the registered owner of the automobile here involved. Fred W. Gray, doing business as Fred W. Gray Company, was the legal owner. The latter had either sold the vehicle to Mike or financed his purchase, taking and reserving the legal title. In due season the coupé was seized by the narcotics enforcement officers and the required notices were served on both Kaleel and appellant. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11613.) Kaleel answered but abandoned the contest. By appropriate pleadings, Mr. Gray challenged the People’s asserted right to a forfeiture contending he had complied with section 11620 of the Health and Safety Code

in that he had made 11 a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the purchaser.” On the issue thus created a jury decided adversely to Fred Gray and judgment was entered forfeiting the car to the state. Appellant now contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. Also, he assigns as prejudicial (1) the exclusion of certain testimony offered

[581]

by appellant and (2) the rejection of an offered instruction with respect to presumptions.

That the evidence justifies the implied finding that appellant did not make a reasonable investigation will presently appear. Whether it was reasonable is a question of fact to be tested by the legal standards ordinarily applied and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish his rights. There is no formula for “a reasonable investigation.” Whether the efforts of the claimant have met the lawful requirements is to be determined by the proof in each case. However, one rule has been developed, to wit, a good financial standing or an excellent credit rating of the registered owner is not sufficient. The law is not satisfied unless the investigation uncovers the “moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser.”

(People

One 1941 Buick Club Coupé,

72 Cal.App.2d 593, 597 [165 P.2d 44].) A sincere investigation should disclose the home address of the prospective purchaser, his employer or place of business, the sources of his income, his family or social connections and his standing in his community.

People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief