McCullough v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McCullough v. State

74 So. 755, 15 Ala. App. 661, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 80

DecidedMarch 23, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 74 So. 755 (McCullough v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCullough v. State, 74 So. 755, 15 Ala. App. 661, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 80 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The only question presented for review arises from a refusal of the affirmative charge requested by the defendant; the contention of appellant being that the undisputed evidence shows that the property alleged to have been unlawfully disposed of was never the property of the defendant, and hence the witness Middlebrooks had no lien thereon by virtue of his mortgage.

*662 The opinion prevails that the evidence offered by the state reasonably affords an inference that the property was that of the defendant when the mortgage was given, and that the paper held by Middlebrooks was a lien thereon. If this was true, the question whether or not he sold the property was likewise for the jury. Stephens testified that he consented that his wife might sell the cow, and if the cow belonged to defendant, and he had given a mortgage on it, and thereafter consented to a sale of the cow, he would be guilty as charged.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The only question presented for review arises from a refusal of the affirmative charge requested by the defendant; the contention of appellant being that the undisputed evidence shows that the property alleged to have been unlawfully disposed of was never the property of the defendant, and hence the witness Middlebrooks had no lien thereon by virtue of his mortgage.

*662 The opinion prevails that the evidence offered by the state reasonably affords an inference that the property was that of the defendant when the mortgage was given, and that the paper held by Middlebrooks was a lien thereon. If this was true, the question whether or not he sold the property was likewise for the jury. Stephens testified that he consented that his wife might sell the cow, and if the cow belonged to defendant, and he had given a mortgage on it, and thereafter consented to a sale of the cow, he would be guilty as charged.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 So. 755, 15 Ala. App. 661, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-state-alactapp-1917.