Grant v. State
Citations
- 35 Fla. 581
Syllabus
<p>1. An indictment for embezzlement in which the only description of the property alleged to have been fraudulently converted is, that it was “the proceeds” of certain lumber sold by the defendant, is wholly insufficient. The general rule is, that such an indictment should state the description of the property embezzled with the same particularity as is required in an indictment for larceny.</p> <p>2. If it is impossible in an indictment for embezzlement to give a very exact description of the property embezzled, the best description practicable should be given, and if the description is indefinite, a reason for not giving 'a better description should be stated.</p> <p>3. The omission in an indictment for embezzlement to describe the proporty alleged to have been embezz’ed is a fatal objection at .any stage of the case the same may be presented, including a motion in.arrest of judgment.</p> <p>4. In an indictment for embezzlement the receipt by the defendant of the property alleged to have been embezzled should be directly and positively alleged. An indictment which only alleges that the defendant sold certain lumber and converted the procetds thereof to his own use, is not equivalent to an averment ■that the proceeds of the sale of the lumber came to bis hands.</p> <p>5. In an indictment for embezzlement the ownership of the property-alleged to have been embezzled should be alleged with the same particularity as in an indictment for larceny.</p> <p>6. In an indictment for embezzlement an allegation that the fraudulent conversion of the proceeds of the property by the defendant injured the bailors in the sum of one hundred and seventy dollars, is not an allegation of the value of the property embezzled. Such an allegation is only useful in showing the amount of damages claimed in a civil proceeding.</p> <p>7. In an indictment for embezzlement it is especially necessary under our statute to state the value of the property alleged to-have been embezzled, because the
Judges: Liddon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lewis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 65×
- Mills v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 47×
- Smith v. ChaseSupreme Court of Florida· 1925-06-05· cited 30×
- Meachem v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 18×
- Phelps v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1923-10-26· cited 14×
- Territory of New Mexico v. HaleNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1905-06-27· cited 10×
- Brown v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-04-21· cited 10×
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Missouri· 1951-06-11· cited 9×
- State v. MishlerOregon Supreme Court· 1916-10-17· cited 6×
- Niblack v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-11-02· cited 4×
- Hagy v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1977-06-21· cited 2×
- Henderson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-03-20· cited 1×
- White v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1975-03-21· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.