Stanley v. State
1 Thompson 57
Opinion
delivering orally the opinion of the court,
Held — 1st. That the amendment of the affidavit and warrant hy the county court was not erroneous. It is not indispensable that the place of birth should be set forth in the warrant It is a matter of evidence, and it is sufficient if it appear in the order of the court.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Stanley v. State, 1 Thompson 57 (Tenn. 1850).
1 Thompson 57 (Stanley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brannan v. City of Mesquite Texas
N.D. Texas, 2020
Thompson v. Tuggle
486 So. 2d 144 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Potts v. Amis
384 P.2d 825 (Washington Supreme Court, 1963)
Vannoy v. Pacific Power & Light Co.
369 P.2d 848 (Washington Supreme Court, 1962)
Haugen v. Central Lutheran Church
361 P.2d 637 (Washington Supreme Court, 1961)
Weatherly v. Bristow
1916 OK 277 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Bowden v. Crowford
125 S.W. 5 (Texas Supreme Court, 1910)
Home Fire Insurance v. Wood
69 N.W. 941 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)
Lewy v. Crawford
23 S.W. 1041 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)
Thrall v. Spear
63 Vt. 266 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1891)
Miller v. Thompson
60 Me. 322 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1872)