People v. One (1) Ford Touring Automobile

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 1933 No. Docket No. 4893.Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that in a forfeiture proceeding under the Wright Act, the state must prove that the legal owner of the property had actual knowledge that the property was being used for an illegal purpose, and the owner has no duty to investigate such use.

Issues

Whether the state must prove that the legal owner of an automobile had actual knowledge of its use in a crime to justify forfeiture.
Whether the legal owner of an automobile has an affirmative duty to investigate the intended use of the vehicle to avoid forfeiture.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is incumbent upon the People to show by sufficient evidence that such owner had actual knowledge that the intention was to use such property or that it was being used as an instrumentality for consummating the commission of such crime.”

“Such a duty certainly is not imposed upon dealers in automobiles.”

“in order to involve the seller in the buyer’s offense, it must be established that he had actual knowledge of the illegal purpose; he is not to be held liable upon the theory that he ought to have known of the use to which the chattel was put.”

PLUMMER, J.

This action was prosecuted to secure a judgment of forfeiture and sale of One Ford Touring Automobile. Judgment went for the intervener, and the plaintiff has appealed.

At the trial of the action the following stipulation was entered into between the plaintiff and the intervener, which, omitting the title, is in the words and figures following:

“It is hereby stipulated, by and between the parties herein, through their respective attorneys, that the follow-

[457]

in g is a true and correct statement of the facts involved in the above entitled cause:

“I.

“That the third party claims filed therein shall have the same force and effect as suit in intervention.

“II.

“That Hillman Auto Loan, Ltd., a corporation, is the

bona fide

owner of the conditional sales contract purporting to establish legal title to the automobile in defendant; that there is due and owing to Hillman Auto Loan, Ltd., a corporation, the sum of Five Hundred Fifty and 35/100 ($550.35) Dollars, as evidenced by a conditional contract of sale covering the said automobile.

“III.

“That Hillman Auto Loan, Ltd., a corporation, had no actual knowledge or notice that the said automobile was being used in aid of, or as an agency for the commission of any crime.

“IV.

“That Hillman Auto Loan, Ltd., a corporation, had no notice or knowledge of the intention of any party to use the same automobile in aid of, or as an agency for the commission of any crime.

“V.

“That Hillman Auto Loan, Ltd., a corporation, did not make, nor did they have made for them, any investigation of the use to which the said automobile was being put, nor did they make, or have made for them, any investigation as to the intention of any party to use the said automobile in aid of, or as an agency for the commission of any crime.

People v. One (1) Ford Touring Automobile

AI Brief

PLUMMER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief