Stenson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stenson v. State

159 S.E. 777, 43 Ga. App. 582, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 473

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1931

Docket21534

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 S.E. 777 (Stenson 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

Stenson v. State, 159 S.E. 777, 43 Ga. App. 582, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. “The words ‘or otherwise dispose of’ in the first section of the act of December 13, 1871, entitled ‘an act to make penal the selling of personal property which has been mortgaged as a security for the payment of a debt,’ etc., must be construed to mean a disposition of the property in the nature of a sale and not in any other manner.” Conley v. State, 85 Ga. 348 (11) (11 S. E. 659), Scott v. State, 6 Ga. App. 332, 334 (64 S. E. 1005), and cit.

2. In the instant case the evidence showed that the mortgaged property (a sow) had been disposed of by being killed and eaten by the mortgagor (the accused). Under the above-stated ruling such a disposition of the property was not covered by the language ‘or otherwise dispose of’ in the statute, and the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized. The contrary ruling of this court in Linder v. State, 17 Ga. App. 520 (87 S. E. 703), must give way to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Conley case and to the older adjudication of this court in the Scott case, supra.

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloockoorth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. “The words ‘or otherwise dispose of’ in the first section of the act of December 13, 1871, entitled ‘an act to make penal the selling of personal property which has been mortgaged as a security for the payment of a debt,’ etc., must be construed to mean a disposition of the property in the nature of a sale and not in any other manner.” Conley v. State, 85 Ga. 348 (11) (11 S. E. 659), Scott v. State, 6 Ga. App. 332, 334 (64 S. E. 1005), and cit.

2. In the instant case the evidence showed that the mortgaged property (a sow) had been disposed of by being killed and eaten by the mortgagor (the accused). Under the above-stated ruling such a disposition of the property was not covered by the language ‘or otherwise dispose of’ in the statute, and the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized. The contrary ruling of this court in Linder v. State, 17 Ga. App. 520 (87 S. E. 703), must give way to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Conley case and to the older adjudication of this court in the Scott case, supra.

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloockoorth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E. 777, 43 Ga. App. 582, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stenson-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack