Branham v. State

22 S.E. 957, 96 Ga. 307
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 10, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 S.E. 957 (Branham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Branham v. State, 22 S.E. 957, 96 Ga. 307 (Ga. 1895).

Opinion

Lumpkin, Justice.

1. The practice is well settled in this State, that when exceptions pendente lite to any ruling or decision of the trial court are filed, the same will not be considered or passed upon by the Supreme Court unless there is an assignment of error thereon. Under section 4250 of the code, this may be done in the Supreme Court after a case reaches here. It would answer the same purpose to make such assignment in the main bill of exceptions by which the case is brought to this court.

2. Under the facts summarized in the second headnote, the accused was, under the provisions of section 4587 of the code, properly convicted of the offense of being a cheat and swindler. According to that section, if any person, by falsely representing his wealth, obtains [309]*309a credit, and thus defrauds another person of anything of value, he shall be deemed guilty of this offense. The word “wealth,” as used in this section, does not import a great fortune or vast possessions, as is frequently implied from its ordinary use; but its real meaning is the possession or ownership of such means or property as would reasonably entitle one to expect and receive the credit he seeks to obtain. Indeed, this word is at last a mere relative term. Among millionaires, a man worth only a hundred thousand dollars is poor indeed; while in some localities, a man worth five thousand dollars over and above all his liabilities would be considered a very wealthy citizen. In principle, and very properly, this section applies to one who, by falsely pretending and representing that he owns or has earned and will receive something of value which he neither owns nor is entitled to, thus defrauds another of his property, whether the amount involved be large or small. See Hathcock v. State, 88 Ga. 91, and the authorities there cited. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Greenberg
160 N.E.2d 181 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
McIntire v. McQuade
9 S.E.2d 633 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Sumner v. Sumner
48 S.E. 727 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.E. 957, 96 Ga. 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branham-v-state-ga-1895.