Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Ga. App. 303

Phillips v. Stapleton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 16, 1919

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1919-01-16

<p>Confiscation; from city court of Miller county—Judge Geer. June 10, 1918.</p>

Relies on Parks v. Simpson · Mabry v. Judkins · Hinton v. Goode

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1919-01-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1968

3 state decisions

10191919201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jenkins, J.

¶1A proceeding to condemn an automobile used on a public road or private way of this State in conveying liquors or beverages, the sale or possession of which is prohibited by law (Ga. L. 1917, Ex. Sess., p. 16, see. 20), is summary in its nature, and the provisions of the statute as to this proceeding must be strictly complied with. Porter v. Lively 45 Ga. 159, 161; Dart v. Mayhew, 60 Ga. 104, 105; Mabry v. Judkins, 66 Ga. 732; Hinton v. Goode, 73 Ga. 233; Parks v. Simpson, 124 Ga. 524 (52 S. E. 616). Under the provisions of the act, it is the duty of the sheriff or other arresting officer seizing t(he vehicle to report such fact to the solicitor of the county, city, or superior court where the seizure is made, “whose duty it shall be within ten days from the time he received said notice to institute condemnation proceedings,” etc. Under the provisions of the act, such a proceeding is barred where commenced more than ten days subsequent to the date of such notice. That the delay in instituting the proceedings in this case was occasioned by the fact that the sheriff, without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, had entrusted the car, while in his possession under such seizure, to another, who, without the connivance of the defendant, took it away and failed to return it, would make no difference in the application of this rule.

¶2Judgment reversed.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.
/23/gaapp/303 · .json · Public domain