Case Name: Ratliff v. State
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1944-10-14
Citations: 182 Tenn. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ratliff v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 182
Pages: 177–180

Head Matter:
Ratliff v. State.
(Knoxville,
September Term, 1944.)
Opinion filed October 14, 1944.
Petition to rehear dismissed December 2, 1944.
T. A. Dodson, of Kingsport, for defendant, plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.

Opinion:
Mb. Justice Chambliss
delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court.
There was a conviction in this case of driving an automobile after tbe driver^ license bad been suspended and taken up by tbe highway officials, with a fine of $25 and a jail sentence of ten days. It appears without dispute that in July 1943, Batliff was arrested by highway officers while driving on tbe Sullivan County highway and transporting several cases of liquor, and bis driver's > license was taken from him, and a notice given him on tbe form used by tbe Highway Department of tbe suspension of bis license. .
Thereafter be was found driving an automobile, without a license and bis arrest and prosecution in this case followed. Tbe defendant did not take tbe stand and be does not appear to question these facts.
However, it was conceded by tbe State On tbe bearing that when tried for transporting Batliff, for some reason not disclosed, was not convicted of a felony. This is stressed for plaintiff in error, but it does not appear to be material. Tbe statute-provides for a temporary suspension pending bearing on'the merits of tbe felony charge and tbe suspension in this case was authorized under this provision regardless of the final outcome of the felony case.
Some question is raised as to the form of the notice given the defendant of the suspension of his license, in that this notice of suspension tdid not describe with sufficient particularity the offense for which he had been arrested, but this objection does not appear to us to have substance. In this case the license had been physically taken from the driver. It is not a ease in which the driver was still in possession of his license. It may well be doubted that any written notice is necessary in a case where, as here, the license has been physically taken up by the Department officials. This defendant well knew that his license had been taken up and that he was driving without it. He was clearly guilty of violating the law and the judgment,is affirmed.