Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Buffington v. State

Buffington v. State

52 S.E. 19, 124 Ga. 24, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 635
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided November 8, 1905·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1. It is essential to the validity of an indictment for larceny that the ownership of the property, if known, be laid in some person or persons.

2. If the indictment lays the ownership of the goods alleged to have been stolen in a partnership, without alleging the names of the partners composing the firm, it is fatally defective. . 12 Enc. PL & Pr. 967; Clark’s Crim. Proc. 228; People v. Bogart, 36 Cal. 245. See Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 219.

3. The name “Stewart & Reece” imports a partnership; and therefore an indictment for larceny wherein the ownership of the goods alleged to have been stolen was laid in “one Stewart & Reece,” without more, should have been held bad, on special demurrer directed to this defect therein.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Buffington v. State, 52 S.E. 19, 124 Ga. 24, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 635 (Ga. 1905).

52 S.E. 19 (Buffington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nickles v. State
71 S.E.2d 578 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
State v. Shroyer
160 P.2d 444 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1945)
Webber v. State
27 S.E.2d 411 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Patrick v. Wood & Sons
133 S.E. 870 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Singer Co. v. Gray & Son
129 S.E. 555 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Underhill v. State
87 So. 637 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)
Randolph v. State
85 S.E. 258 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Dublin & Southwestern Railway Co. v. Akerman & Akerman
59 S.E. 10 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)