*1 23, 1944.] Dist., Div. Mar. No. 14133. Second One. [Civ. CLUB ONE 1941 PEOPLE, Appellant, CADILLAC THE COUPE, Defendant; PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORA- (a Respondent. Corporation), TION OF CALIFORNIA *2 Bayard Kenny, Attorney General, Rhone, Robert W. and Deputy Attorney General, Appellant. for
Williamson, Hoge & Judson, Curry Gene G. Edward and M. Respondent. Patterson for
WHITE, J.Plaintiff forfeit proceedings to commenced the defendant ground on automobile the un it was used lawfully transport (secs. 11610-11629, narcotics Health & Safety Act). Code—formerly known as the State Narcotic Pursuant provisions, following code notified were of proceeding: owner, Gonzales, registered Gilbert B. and California, lеgal Pacific Corporation Finance of owner. registered Gilbert B. owner, filed answer in which he denied unlaw that the vehicle was used fully conceal, By convey, carry transport narcotics. or its legal answer the owner, of Pacific Finance Corporation Cаlifornia, up set its interest under conditional sales tract $780, which there was of a balance due in the sum and alleging further that its interest under said conditional sales contract was created after reasonable such corporation of and responsibility, moral character reputation registered owner.
With reference to the seizure of said the record August 23, was, discloses that on 1942, while the automobile registered owner, the consent of the under sole Pekara, trol and in temporary possession of one Andrew certain nаrcotic enforcement officers made a search of the depression vehicle thereof, and visible the seat not entering compartment, the driver’s found not cigarette. forfeiture Hence, attempted marihuana legal only registered but of the own- ownеr’s interest er’s as well. The provisions case was tried under the aforesaid
(cid:127) Code; & portion Health The of the statute involved found section of such code and reads follows: ‘‘ any right, claimant title interest
may prove lien, mortgage contract conditional sales cre- bе bona was right, fide and that his title or interest responsi- after a ated reasonable bility, reputation character, and with- be, any knowledge being, out the vehicle was or was to purpose charged.” used stipulated (1) the trial the State the conditional Corporatiоn sales under contract Pacific Finance bona automobile California claimed an interest fide; (2) corporation’s interest right, title that said knowledge under said contract without was created charged. being, be, purpose used here presented issue therеfore narrowed down to of whether or interest of title investigation by it created after a reasonable The trial court that “said vehicle found marihuana, narcotics, to-wit, transport used by the Division Narcotic Enforcement and was seized *3 the August 23, 1942, the of California on оr about at State specific Pekara, of of Andrew time the arrest who had to Gonzales) (Gilbert B. registered of the owner consent also, vehicle;” “that conditional sales drive Cor- tract, right, of the Pacific Finance title interest valuable poration in faith and for а of California arose investiga- reasonable consideration, after and was created a reputation of responsibility, character and tion of the moral knowledge any that said vehicle purchaser, and without . . any purpose; . being for unlawful or was to be used Cali- of Corporation Pacific Finance amount due to that of sum is the upon its conditional sales contract fornia vehicle.” (which) than . . is less the value of said $780.00 . rendered from appeal is the State This of California the interest of which forfeited State vehicle; and to owner, Gilbert B. in registered public auction and from automobile sold at ordered in- of with $780 that the sum sale directed proceeds of paid) to 8, 1942, be December from cent per terest at corporation. find- urges appellant for reversal “that grounds As Pacific interest title and that the ing of court Corporation Finance ‘was a created after inves- reasonable tigation of character and purchaser’ of supported by is not the evidence.”
The claim
that
sus
evidence is insufficient
finding
tain the
a
reasonable
made,
totally
the owner was
is
without merit.
requirements
are
foregoing provision
penal
highly
extraordinary
impose
a burden of most
nature on
and useful
a lawful
like'
transaction,
business
is
attempt,
which
unknown elsewhere
the law. Any
circumstances,
therefore,
to enforcе
forfeiture
such
under
imposes a corresponding duty on
scan
rec
the courts to
may
care,
with
injustice
ord
meticulous
the end that no
(25
1172.)
from such action.
result
C.J.
And
nection,
necessarily
all doubts must
be
resolved in favor
grounded
No
firmly
the innocent claimant.
rule is more
our law thаn the
which
one
declares that neither courts
equity
nor of
impose
law
look
favor
statutes which
penalties
Therefore,
or exact forfeitures.
intendment
every
presumption
against
pen
one who seeks to enforce the
alty
or forfeiture creatеd
such a statute.
(Savings & Loan
Society McKoon,
Section the Health and Code relating forfeitures vehicles violations State Narcotic provides as “A Law vehicle to unlawfully follows: used trans- any narcotic, port or which narcotic is deposited concealed, kept, narcotic unlawfully possessed an occupant thereof, shall be for- to the State.” feited transport carry convey
To means place clearly appear it must another. And being purpose. discovery used The incidental cigarette marihuana in a vehicle is not sufficient being establish the fact used to trans & port provisions narcotics. forfeiture Health *4 designed suppression Code are aid in narcotics. traffic There is no evidence the record tending prove, suggests, or that even that the automobile being purpose. was used for such a question If attempted forfeiture is bаsed on of the aforesaid the balance “ any unlawfully kept, or in which is provision, viz.: narcotic or in deposited concealed, narcotic is occupant thereof”, clearly ap then it possessed by an must legal equitable pear that either the owner be, may protect is his interest seeking as the case who conduct, an aider in such therein, was and abettor unlawful Furthermore, words, pariiceps or in crimmis. the state other judgment a ment that when an attack is made on power of ground evidence, it is unsupported that rеviewing courts limited to a determination whether evidence, uneontra there is substantial contradicted rendered, sup dicted, which will sustain authority. ported legion The record herein shows 8, 1942, named that on or about June an automobile dealer respondent Lee here in Evans sold On on a conditional sales contract. Gilbert B. Gonzales business, 1942, 9, ordinary course usual June Corporation purchased respondent Pacific Finance had stipulated It tract from Evans. was that $1,200 its seizure approximate an at time of value on owing and that there was then to the finance Gon respondent When $780. contract balance signed the filled in and purchased zales the automobile he 10, usual statement which bears date June purchaser’s married, In was 1942. such statement he declared he gave his had his and the name of dependent, address gave of an landlord. As trade the name reference he purchased previously automobile dealer whom he had individuals a motor He furnished names of three vehicle. employed personal he references. He stated that had Shipbuilding Corporation California for whom worker; metal period of four months as a sheet worked over prior per $200 month and that income was John a bartender for shipyard employment he had worked as given reference. personal name as a Blandino, whose was also investigator The credit connection investigation in duty make
whose it contacted that she contracts testified with conditional sales but telephone Corporation by Shipbuilding the California required “they by mail” and verified advised This was made. inquiry badge employee whеn number she her. testified not available to She information was how him landlord and “asked purchaser’s telephoned year, there, lived and he Mr. Gonzales had long promptly, it rent; paid paid him how he I and asked
423 against anything him if he knew him and asked and against wit- everything nothing was all him.” The inquiry nеss made of the landlord as to Gon- also where Mr. employed zales and informed that he worked at Corporation. Shipbuilding the trial it California definitely employees testimony of established two shipbuilding employed that Gonzales was question. in at the time here Thus have we requirеments situation wherein the of the law to both the as responsibility financial and purchaser status of the investigation were met. only financial embraced not sideration connection also included but inquiry to how purchaser regarded by as land- lord and community whether his moral сonduct which he resided was bad. It needs citation no authority for the statement reply landlord’s against effect nothing that he knew Mr. Gonzales amounted good reputation. to evidence of
Appellant strong places reliance on the case of Peo- рle 1939 8 Cal.App.2d One Buick 43 Coupe, 411, 416 [110 1013].) P.2d In court, holding case the scope of the and reasonableness of required investigation primarily one of fact but should meet certain legal requirements, stated: “It would seem that a Iona fide investigation should, among other essentiаls, reveal home prospect, employer, address either past present, income, of his family source or social connections, stranger, and as the case here of a some inquiry as to his prior standing location and his in that community.” The in- quiry in the ease at just bаr test meets the stated which appellant strongly so relies. impressed
We are that in the consideration aris of cases ing out statute here under consideration inter pretation given to be required therein be made must turn on the circumstances the individual case, passing upon the decisions the facts deemed sufficient or insufficient to can sustain be little assistance other than to announce the definition of what respon constitutes a “reasonable investigation of the sibility, reputation” For instance, it been investigation sufficiently has hеld that complies with the law when but inter reference was (People viewed. Coupe, Cal.App.2d v. One 1399 Buick 56 424 308]; People
163 P.2d 1940 Chrysler v. One [132 Convertible Coupe, 48 Cal.App.2d 117]; People 546 P.2d v. One [120 Plymouth Sedan, Cal.App.2d 1011].) P.2d investigation,
Neither a nor maximum a minimum required be a lender, to made forth in set statute. Nor is the extent to to the moral purchaser character and shall go, prescribed by the law. Under facts disclosed *6 proceeding, persuaded instant we be held are it must corporation the statements finance by made to the purchaser’s as lаndlord financial employment, cor- community, as roborating they purchaser by as did statements made rea- purchaser’s satisfy a statement, in his were such as to sonably moral char- prudent person purchaser’s requires. acter. That all be borne the law It should also illеgal in mind that the was not seized because in connec- part purchaser unlawful conduct on the evidence therewith, tion and the record barren illicit necting alleged Mr. with the inno- transportation of narcotics other than the fact that automobile. cently permitted Pekara borrow the investigation made of whether responsibility corporation as finance essentially one, being purchaser was a reasonable rea might fact, than one inference simply because more authorize sonably evidence doеs not us be drawn duly finding thereon made constituted disturb evi any substantial “if the record discloses trier facts Coupe, 1939 (People v. One Buick dentiary support therefor.” 308].) In the case 163,167 Cal.App.2d P.2d 56 [132 in evidence relative here concerned the which we are reason act rеquirement of quiry satisfies the made trial supports the fully be made and investigation able subject. finding upon the court’s Packard, Sedan, Touring 6 1937 People v. One cases 6 900]; People Packard v. One 761 P.2d Cal.App.2d 50 Touring Sedan, [123 v. People 130]; 150 P.2d Cal.App.2d 26 [79 P.2d 411 Cal.App.2d 43 Coupe, 8 [110 1939 One Buick Motorcycle, 5 Cal.2d Harley-Davidson ; People v. One 1013] Sedan, 39 Cal. 1938 Buick 970]; People v. One P.2d 188 [53 dis are by appellant, 447], relied P.2d 42 App.2d [102 situations factual ease at bar from the tinguishable
425 presented, while the by respondent made obtaining herein much discloses of as more concerning purchaser information making and the of an equally as reasonable following held People sufficient cases: v. One Plymouth 21 Sedan, Cal.App.2d ; People 715 P.2d [69 1011] ; Coach, Cal.App.2d v. One V-8 21 Ford 445 P.2d 473] [69 People 6 Plymouth Cal.App.2d v. One 1939 41 Coupe, 559 People Sedan, P.2d 1933 43 266]; Cal. One Buick [107 App.2d People 482 378]; Chrysler P.2d 1940 v. One [111 Coupe, 48 Cal.App.2d 117]; 546 Convertible P.2d Peo [120 ple v. 1939 Buick Coupe, One P.2d Cal.App.2d 308]. stated,
For herein the reasons is affirmed. Doran, J., concurred.
YORK, P. J.I investigation, dissent. The so-called my opinion, any investigation did not whatsoever. constitute least, any the еvidence as shown the record did not in prove rep wise tend to the moral responsibility, character or utation petition
A *7 rehearing for a April 21, was denied 1944, and opinion was modified to York, read above. J.,P. voted rehearing. Appellant’s for a petition for hearing by Supreme May Court was 18, Gibson, denied J., 1944. C. Curtis, J., Traynor, J., hearing. voted for a