Slicer v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Slicer v. State

148 S.E. 385, 168 Ga. 566, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 190

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1929

DocketNo. 6946

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 385 (Slicer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slicer v. State, 148 S.E. 385, 168 Ga. 566, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 190 (Ga. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted under section 28 of article 20 of an act entitled, “An act to regulate banking in the State of Georgia,” etc. (Ga. L. 1919, pp. 135, 219). At the trial a demurrer to the indictment was submitted by the accused, based upon the ground, among others, that the act upon which the indictment was founded is unconstitutional and void. The demurrer was overruled, and the case proceeded to trial and to a verdict of guilty. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. A writ of error to this court was sued out, error being assigned both upon the overruling of the demurrer and the refusal to grant a new trial. The question presented is the same as that presented in Manley v. State, 166 Ga. 563, and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (279 U. S. 1, 49 Sup. Ct. 215), wherein it was held that the section of the banking act referred to above is unconstitutional and void. That ruling is necessarily controlling in the present case, and the judgment overruling the demurrer in the' court below is Reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted under section 28 of article 20 of an act entitled, “An act to regulate banking in the State of Georgia,” etc. (Ga. L. 1919, pp. 135, 219). At the trial a demurrer to the indictment was submitted by the accused, based upon the ground, among others, that the act upon which the indictment was founded is unconstitutional and void. The demurrer was overruled, and the case proceeded to trial and to a verdict of guilty. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. A writ of error to this court was sued out, error being assigned both upon the overruling of the demurrer and the refusal to grant a new trial. The question presented is the same as that presented in Manley v. State, 166 Ga. 563, and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (279 U. S. 1, 49 Sup. Ct. 215), wherein it was held that the section of the banking act referred to above is unconstitutional and void. That ruling is necessarily controlling in the present case, and the judgment overruling the demurrer in the' court below is Reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 385, 168 Ga. 566, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slicer-v-state-ga-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack