Bell v. State, 75 So. 648

BROWN, P. J.

[1] Sеction 6931, Code 1907, denounces as crime the taking or destruction of wills, deeds, or conveyances of real or personal property, with the intent tо injure or defraud, and the receiving, conceаling, or aiding in concealing such conveyances, knowing the same to have been taken with the intent tо injure or defraud. The manifest purpose and scope of this statute is to punish the fraudulent suppressiоn of evidence of the .right or title to propеrty in some person other than the person accused. It certainly does not comprehend the act of accepting as grantee from a grantor ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‍a deed of conveyance, the delivery of which was intentional and for the purposе of passing the title of the property to the grаntee, though at the time the grantee may have еntertained the intent to injure or defraud. The terms, “Any person who, with intent to injure or defraud, takes or destroys аny will, deed, or conveyance of real or personal property,” when strictly construed, exсlude the idea that a voluntary and intentional delivеry of a deed by the maker to the grantee is within the statute. The taking, to be within the statute, must be a larcenous taking.

[2] The deed alleged to have been taken by the defendant is set out in hsec verba in the indictment, and purports to have been executed by Alice P. Waldron and her husband, B. O. Waldron, to the defendant Stephen Bell; and the averments of the indictment that the defendant ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‍“did take” said deed are comprehensive enough to cover an act not denounсed as a crime by the statute, injecting into the indictmеnt such uncertainty as to render it fatally defectivе and wholly insufficient to support the judgment. Mehaffey v. State, ante, p. 99, 75 South. 647; State v. Nix, 165 Ala. 126, 51 South. 754; Raisler v. State, 55 Ala. 64; Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 South. 54; Noah v. State, 15 Ala. App. 142, 72 South. 611.

While there is uo bill of exceptions in the case, it appears fr.om the statemеnt of facts set out in the oral charge of the court, incorporated in the record, that the dеfendant was convicted for the act of accepting a deed as grantee from the Waldrons, who delivered it to him for the purpose of investing the defendant with the title to ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‍the land described therein, thus еnabling him to mortgage the land and secure a loаn to pay the purchase money; that the fraud relied on was the failure of the defendant to cоmply w.ith his contract to pay the money over to the Waldrons after he obtained it on the security afforded by the mortgage. This was not an act within the statutе.

The judgment of the criminal court is ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‍reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Bell v. State

Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals

Date Published: May 29, 1917

Citations: 75 So. 648; 16 Ala. App. 100; 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 165; 6 Div. 192.

Docket Number: 6 Div. 192.

Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.