Franklin v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 703 |
| Parties | William L. FRANKLIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Ruth S. Sullivan, Dadeville, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Walter S. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant stands convicted of the offense of obtaining property by false pretense. Title 14, Sec. 209, Code 1940.
The evidence for the state tends to show that on May 27, 1967, defendant purchased a new 1967 Chevrolet Caprice automobile from McKelvey Chevrolet Corporation, Dadeville, Alabama, upon a conditional sales contract, giving in trade a 1965 LTD Ford automobile. The difference in price between the Ford and Chevrolet was $2195.00. Upon execution of the contract and delivery of the Ford defendant was put in possession of the Chevrolet. By the terms of the conditional sales contract title was reserved in the vendor until the full purchase price was paid. The contract was assigned to General Motors Acceptance Corporation.
Defendant told Mr. Joe McKelvey, an officer of the Corporation, that the Ford was paid for and showed him a bill of sale from Daniel Motor Company, Opelika, marked paid. Shortly thereafter The American Finance Company repossessed the Ford.
The appellant contends that reservation of title in the vendor is conclusive of the fact that only possession of the Chevrolet was obtained, whereas both title and possession must have been obtained by fraud to constitute the offense charged. Reliance is had upon the statements in Murchison v. State, 32 Ala.App. 427, 26 So.2d 622, and Jackson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 42, 31 So.2d 514 to the effect that if the possession of the property is obtained by fraud and the owner intends to part with the title as well as the possession, the offense is that of obtaining property by false pretense.
In Whitmore v. State, 238 Wis. 79, 298 N.W. 194, 134 A.L.R. 872, the court said that where
In Tanner & De Laney Engine Co. v. Hall, 89 Ala. 628, 7 So. 187...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yeager v. State, 4 Div. 593
...parte Thaggard, 276 Ala. 117, 159 So.2d 820 (1963), though it need not be the sole or exclusive cause for the loss. Franklin v. State, 44 Ala.App. 521, 214 So.2d 924 (1968). The fact that the victim was not diligent, but imprudent will not negate his reliance if the misrepresentation would ......
-
McMurphy v. State, 5 Div. 691
...with his property; it was sufficient if he would not have parted with it in the absence of the false pretense. Franklin v. State, 44 Ala.App. 521, 214 So.2d 924 (1968). The false pretense must not have been merely the expression of an opinion then entertained by the defendant, but must rela......
-
Shropshire v. Com.
...28 Va.App. at 168, 503 S.E.2d at 224 (quoting Whitmore v. State, 238 Wis. 79, 298 N.W. 194, 195 (1941)); see Franklin v. State, 44 Ala.App. 521, 214 So.2d 924, 925 (1968); People v. Aiken, 222 Cal. App.2d 45, 34 Cal.Rptr. 828, 831 (2 Dist. For purposes of false pretenses, to require that bo......
-
Ex parte Day
...parte Thaggard, 276 Ala. 117, 159 So.2d 820 (1963), though it need not be the sole or exclusive cause for the loss. Franklin v. State, 44 Ala.App. 521, 214 So.2d 924 (1968). The fact that the victim was not diligent, but imprudent, will not negate his reliance if the misrepresentation would......