Court Opinion

ID: 9641675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:37:39.476444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:38.796383
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Griffin joined by Justice Brewster,
dissenting.
In this case this Court has a choice of two courses of action and each has some authority to support it. These two courses of action are; first, to forfeit the property of an admittedly innocent owner having no connection at all with the violation of the narcotic laws. This course the majority has chosen to follow. The second course is to hold that the rights of an innocent owner can be protected and cannot be forfeited.
I prefer to follow the second course, especially in view of the authority of General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. State, 1929, 118 Texas 189, 12 S.W. 2d 968, wherein this court specifically refused to accept the doctrine of the cases relied upon by the majority. Also the case of Lorance v. State, Texas Civ. App., 1943, 172 S.W. 2d 386, writ refused.
For the reasons cited, I join in the dissent herein.
Opinion delivered April 24, 1957.