History
  • No items yet
midpage
Armstrong v. State
27 Tex. Ct. App. 462
| Tex. App. | 1889
|
Check Treatment
White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant in each of the above cases has been convicted of a fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property. An indictment, to be sufficient to charge the offense of selling or disposing of mortgaged property with intent to defraud, must allege the name of the person to whom the mortgaged property was disposed or sold, or that the name of such person was unknown to the grand jury. (Smith v. The State, 26 Texas Ct. App., 577; Presley v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 494; Alexander v. The State, ante. 94.)

Because the indictments in. these cases are fatally defective in this regard, the judgments are reversed and the prosecutions dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Case Details

Case Name: Armstrong v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Apr 10, 1889
Citation: 27 Tex. Ct. App. 462
Docket Number: Nos. 6197 and 6198
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.