Small v. State

79 S.E. 1134, 14 Ga. App. 15, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 386
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 25, 1913
Docket5231
StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 1134 (Small 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
Small v. State, 79 S.E. 1134, 14 Ga. App. 15, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. A writing containing a promise to labor, which does not describe the work to be performed, is too indefinite to be the basis of a prosecution for cheating and swindling, under section 715 of the Penal Code. Adams v. State, 10 Ga. App. 801 (74 S. E. 95), and citations.

2. The rule above stated is applicable to a writing in the following language: “In consideration of the sum of ($12.00) twelve dollars paid me to-day, I hereby agree to work C. W. Skinner seven months at $12.00 per month on any place of the said C. W. Skinner, commencing January 1st, 1913, and ending August 1st, 1913.”

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Adams v. State
74 S.E. 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 S.E. 1134, 14 Ga. App. 15, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-state-gactapp-1913.