State v. Stephens

Citations

• 109 Kan. 254
• 198 P. 1087
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 117

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Liquor Law — -Transportation of Liquor in Automobile — Forfeiture of Automobile — Bights of Innocent Mortgagee. Chapter 217 of the Session Laws of 1919, which declares that automobiles used in the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors are common nuisances and provides for their condemnation and forfeiture, is not susceptible of an interpretation that the interest of an innocent holder of a chattel mortgage on an automobile used in violation of the statute is to be preserved from such condemnation and forfeiture. The forfeiture of such interest is merely an incident to the proper and effective execution of the forfeiture declared by the statute.</p> <p>2. Same. Chapter 217 of the Session Laws of 1919 contains no constitutional infirmity because the interest of an innocent holder of a chattel mortgage on an automobile is not preserved from forfeiture when the automobile itself is adjudged to be a common nuisance and forfeited according to the statute, following The State v. Peterson, 107 Kan. 641, 193 Pac. 342, and Grant Co. v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, Janizary 17, 1921 (41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189).</p> <p>3. Same. — “One Isolated Instance of Violation of Statute’’ — No Exemption of Auto from Forfeiture. The contention that the automobile was only used unlawfully in “one isolated instance of violation of the statute,” is not sustained by the evidence; and even if so, no exemption from forfeiture on that account can be fairly discovered in the all-inclusive language of the statute declaring that an automobile thus unlawfully used for the transportation of intoxicating liquors is a common nuisance and subject to forfeiture.</p>