Edmonds v. State
| Citation | 6 So. 54,87 Ala. 12 |
| Parties | EDMONDS ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1889 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; SAMUEL E. GREENE Judge.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges the breaking and entering "of the store of the Perry Mason Shoe Company," with the intent to steal, etc. The sole question presented by the record for our consideration is whether the allegations as to the ownership of the house entered is sufficient. One of the essentials of a charge in offenses against property is the negation of the defendant's ownership by such averments as show affirmatively that the property, general or special against which the crime is laid, is in another. It is on this principle that indictments charging offenses against the property of partnerships are bad, unless the names of the individuals composing the firm are set out; for otherwise it is not shown that the crime could have been committed of the property, as non constat the defendant is one of the partners, and as such is entitled to do with respect to the partnership property the precise thing charged against him as a crime. Davis v. State, 54 Ala. 88; Beall v State, 53 Ala. 460; Graves v. State, 63 Ala. 134. If the property is laid in the corporation, it is not necessary to state the names of its shareholders, as they, in their individual capacities, have no more control or possession of it than strangers, and whether the defendant be a shareholder or not is immaterial.
But the indictment should aver facts which show that the company is a corporation. The use of a name which may import a corporation, or which, on the other hand, may be that of a voluntary association or a simple partnership, will not suffice. It is enough in civil causes depending on corporate character, at least on appeal, to allege a name appropriate to a corporation, (Seymour v. Harrow Co., 81 Ala 252, 1 South. Rep. 45;) but the rule which requires indictments to aver every fact necessary to an affirmation of guilt is not satisfied, as long as any one of these facts is left to implication or inference. The Perry Mason Shoe Company bears a name appropriate to corporate existence, yet it may be that of a voluntary association of two or more individuals, each having the right to break into and enter the store-house of the company, and for aught that appears in the indictment the defendant may be one of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Addington v. State
...as long as any fact essential to guilt is left to implication or inference. Jenkins v. State, 97 Ala. 66, 12 So. 110; Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 So. 54; Adams State, 13 Ala.App. 330, 69 So. 357. The form of the indictment here is that "Jacob L. Addington did falsely pretend to Rachel W......
-
Nelson v. State, 6 Div. 418
...absence of any attack on it in the court below. Brown v. State, 32 Ala.App. 246, 24 So.2d 450; Raisler v. State, 55 Ala. 64; Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 So. 54; Gaines v. State, 146 Ala. 16, 41 So. 865; Mehaffey v. State, 16 Ala.App. 99, 75 So. 647; Jetton v. State, 29 Ala.App. 134, 195......
-
State v. Stanley
...In this case the state should have pleaded and proved a partnership. 6 Cyc. 215; State v. Rivers, 68 Iowa 611, 27 N.W. 781; Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 So. 54; Davis v. State, 54 Ala. 88. The owner of a building cannot be convicted of this crime merely because some person entered the bu......
-
Riggs v. State
...against which the crime is laid, is in another.” Wilson v. State, 247 Ala. 84, 85, 22 So.2d 601, 602 (1945) (citing Edmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 So. 54 (1889)). At trial, Riggs presented evidence that he was living in the apartment with Payne at the time of the murder. Based on this evid......