Davis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davis v. State

139 S.E. 100, 37 Ga. App. 144, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 524

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1927

Docket17981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 100 (Davis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. State, 139 S.E. 100, 37 Ga. App. 144, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinions

Luke, J.

The defendant was tried under an indictment charging him in the first count with simple larceny of an automobile, and in the second count with having converted the automobile to [145]*145his own use after being entrusted with it by one Davis for the purpose of delivering it to a designated person. The verdict was as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of misdemeanor, and recommend to the mercy of the court, count 2 He was sentenced to work twelve months, the sentence to be suspended upon his making reasonable restitution to the Drive-It-Yourself Company. The case came to this court on exceptions to the overruling of his motion to set aside the judgment, upon the ground that there was no legal verdict to base the judgment upon. Held, that the verdict was a nullity, and that the court erred in overruling the motion to set aside the judgment, or sentence, in the case. Wells v. State, 116 Ga. 87 (42 S. E. 390); Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 16 (2) (43 S. E. 703).

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Broyles, O. J., dissents.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant was tried under an indictment charging him in the first count with simple larceny of an automobile, and in the second count with having converted the automobile to [145]*145his own use after being entrusted with it by one Davis for the purpose of delivering it to a designated person. The verdict was as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of misdemeanor, and recommend to the mercy of the court, count 2 He was sentenced to work twelve months, the sentence to be suspended upon his making reasonable restitution to the Drive-It-Yourself Company. The case came to this court on exceptions to the overruling of his motion to set aside the judgment, upon the ground that there was no legal verdict to base the judgment upon. Held, that the verdict was a nullity, and that the court erred in overruling the motion to set aside the judgment, or sentence, in the case. Wells v. State, 116 Ga. 87 (42 S. E. 390); Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 16 (2) (43 S. E. 703).

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Broyles, O. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 100, 37 Ga. App. 144, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack