Henderson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henderson v. State

100 S.E. 731, 24 Ga. App. 353, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 651

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Henderson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 27 Ga. App. 628 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 4, 1919·No. 10859·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

An indictment, drawn under section 193 of the Penal Code (1910), -which alleges that the defendant’ was entrusted with promissory notes for stated sums of money, for the purpose of collecting the money which was due thereon, is subject to special demurrer, where there is no allegation that the notes were of value. See Davis v. State, 40 Oa. 229. The court erred in overruling the demurrer which attacked the indictment for insufficiency in failing to allege that the notes were solvent or of any value.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur. M. B. Eubanks, for plaintiff in error. O. II. Porter, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Luke, J.

An indictment, drawn under section 193 of the Penal Code (1910), -which alleges that the defendant’ was entrusted with promissory notes for stated sums of money, for the purpose of collecting the money which was due thereon, is subject to special demurrer, where there is no allegation that the notes were of value. See Davis v. State, 40 Oa. 229. The court erred in overruling the demurrer which attacked the indictment for insufficiency in failing to allege that the notes were solvent or of any value.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur. M. B. Eubanks, for plaintiff in error. O. II. Porter, solicitor-general, contra.

Henderson v. State, 100 S.E. 731, 24 Ga. App. 353, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

100 S.E. 731 (Henderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.