Sirmans v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sirmans v. State

172 S.E. 93, 48 Ga. App. 159, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 509

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 22, 1933

Docket23683

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 93 (Sirmans 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

Sirmans v. State, 172 S.E. 93, 48 Ga. App. 159, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 509 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Since the unlawful sale of mortgaged personal property is a misdemeanor, all persons who participate in the offense by aiding and abetting in its commission are principals. Wyatt v. State, 16 Ga. App. 817 (1).

2. In the instant case two brothers were convicted of unlawfully selling mortgaged personal property. The evidence authorized a finding that both defendants executed the mortgage, that one of them sold the mortgaged property before the payment of the mortgage debt, without the consent of, and with the intent to defraud, the mortgagee, that loss was thereby sustained by the mortgagee, and that the other defendant aided and abetted his brother in the commission of the offense. It follows that the verdict was authorized by the evidence, and that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial based upon the usual general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. I. H. Corbitt, for plaintiffs in error. H. C. Morgan, solicitor-general, William Story, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Since the unlawful sale of mortgaged personal property is a misdemeanor, all persons who participate in the offense by aiding and abetting in its commission are principals. Wyatt v. State, 16 Ga. App. 817 (1).

2. In the instant case two brothers were convicted of unlawfully selling mortgaged personal property. The evidence authorized a finding that both defendants executed the mortgage, that one of them sold the mortgaged property before the payment of the mortgage debt, without the consent of, and with the intent to defraud, the mortgagee, that loss was thereby sustained by the mortgagee, and that the other defendant aided and abetted his brother in the commission of the offense. It follows that the verdict was authorized by the evidence, and that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial based upon the usual general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. I. H. Corbitt, for plaintiffs in error. H. C. Morgan, solicitor-general, William Story, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 93, 48 Ga. App. 159, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sirmans-v-state-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack