Card v. State

239 S.W.2d 395, 156 Tex. Crim. 442, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1629
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 16, 1951
DocketNo. 25283
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 S.W.2d 395 (Card v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Card v. State, 239 S.W.2d 395, 156 Tex. Crim. 442, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1629 (Tex. 1951).

Opinion

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of removing mortgaged property out of the county with intent to defraud, as defined in Art. 1558, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., with punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

No notice of appeal appears to have been entered of record in the minutes of the trial court, and this court is therefore without jurisdiction to enter any order herein other than to dismiss the appeal. See Art. 827, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., and cases cited under Note 5 thereunder.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

ON APPELLANT’S motion to reinstate appeal.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on an indictment charging removal of mortgaged property out of Wheeler County and was assessed two years in the penitentiary.

On original submission the appeal was dismissed because of a defective record. Correction has now been made and the appeal is considered on its merits.

It will be necessary to discuss only one of the errors pointed out by the appeal. The indictment alleges the injured party to be the “Farmers and Merchants Bank of Shamrock, Texas.” There is no allegation that it is a corporation. The proof shows that the injured party is an incorporated bank.

There is a further variance between the allegation and the proof in that the evidence introduced by the state shows the name of the bank to be “Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Shamrock. Texas.” Williams v. State, 118 Texas Cr. R. 386 39 S.W. 2d 79: Reese v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 582. 44 S.W. 2d 679; and Nichols v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 123 S.W. 2d 672.

Because of the variance between the allegation and the proof, [444]*444the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

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

Related

Boyette v. State
632 S.W.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
McLaren v. State
320 S.W.2d 141 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Card v. State
242 S.W.2d 369 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 S.W.2d 395, 156 Tex. Crim. 442, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/card-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.