Adams v. State
74 S.E. 95, 10 Ga. App. 801, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 698
Opinion
1. No contract “clear and definite in its terms” having been shown, the evidence was not sufficient to authorize a conviction of cheating and swindling, under the act approved August 15, 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90). Saunders v. State, 7 Ga. App. 46 (65 S. E. 1071).
2. Even if the evidence was sufficient in other respects, the contract was too indefinite as to the character of the work to be performed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Adams v. State, 74 S.E. 95, 10 Ga. App. 801, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).
74 S.E. 95 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Banton v. State
194 S.E. 827 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Small v. State
79 S.E. 1134 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Powell v. State
74 S.E. 440 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)