Morris v. State
Citations
- 54 Fla. 80
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law — Obtaining Property by False Representations —Misspelling of Name in Indictment — iRepresentations as to Ownership of Property Mortgaged — Verdicts.</p> <p>1. Where there is but a single defendant named in an indictment, whose name, Giles Morris, is correctly and repeatedly given in such indictment, and after being thus correctly and repeatedly given, he is in one place in such indictment referred to as “the said Gules Morris,” Held, — That such misspelling of the defendant’s first name, under these circumstances, is so patently a mere lapsus permae, as to leave no room for doubt as to who was intended to be named, and that it is an immaterial error in such indictment, that does not vitiate it.</p> <p>2. It is well settled that the crime of obtaining property or money by false representations and practices is not committed by a mere false promise without an accompanying false statement of a past or present existing fact, and that a false statement of such fact may become effective only by being coupled with a false promise; and that when this is the case the statement of fact and the promise may be considered as together constituting the false pretense, and that a conviction may follow.</p> <p>3. If the statement of fact and the promise can be separated and the prosecutor relied in part on the former, the promise may be disregarded and the defendant be convicted on the false statement of fact.</p> <p>4. It is well settled that a party who falsely and knowingly represents that he owns property that he mortgages to secure a loan of money obtained upon the faith of such representation can be convicted of the crime of obtaining property by false pretences.</p> <p>• 5. While verdicts in criminal cases should be certain, and impart a definite meaning, free from ambiguity, yet any words that convey, beyond a reasonable doubt, the meaning and intention of the jury are sufficient; and all fair intendments should be made to sustain them. If the intention of t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- party who falsely represents he owns property he mortgages to secure a loan can be convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Taylor
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Youngker v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-10-25· cited 40×
- State v. PhairSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2004-07-07· cited 16×
- Pugh v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 5×
- Benefield v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1963-01-25· cited 4×
- Oakhill Homes, Inc. v. StateBroward County Circuit Court· 1976-06-10
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Higginbotham v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 32×
- Holton v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1899-10-27· cited 26×
- Commonwealth v. LeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1889-05-09· cited 20×
- Long v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 18×
- Snyder v. SnyderIndiana Supreme Court· 1865-11-15· cited 15×
- People v. OscarMichigan Supreme Court· 1895-07-02· cited 12×
- Johns v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 11×
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1898-10-12· cited 9×
- Donohoe v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1894-07-07· cited 5×
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.