Mullican v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 1962 |
| Parties | , 210 Tenn. 505 W. G. MULLICAN v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Flatt & Flatt, Cookeville, for plaintiff in error.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for the State.
The Plaintiff in error was convicted on two separate indictments charging false pretense. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years in the State penitentiary in each case. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
There are numerous assignments of error, all of which are to the effect that the evidence preponderates against the verdict and in favor of the innocence of the accused, on the theory that no false representations of the existing facts were shown and no representation that the proposed development by the plaintiff in error about which the charge is made was to be completed within any particular time.
The factual situation developed by this record is that Mullican represented himself to numerous people and in particular to Charles Ramsey and Ralph E. Kidd that he was planning a Fly-In Resort on property which he owned bordering on Center Hill Lake. He presented to them 'sketches and designs' to show graphicly the type of development that he intended.
Kidd had formerly been a security salesman and lived near this neighborhood and was a member of the same church that Mullican belonged to. The two became acquainted and this development was gone over with Kidd on numerous occasions, and Kidd took Mullican around to various members of the church in this section of Tennessee and over into Kentucky. Mullican had acquired a tract of 120 odd acres, bordering on Center Hill Lake, but the deed to this property, at the time the allegations against Mullican were made, had not been recorded. Mullican in 1957 had about 20 acres of this land bulldozed apparently getting it ready for a flying field. In his sales talk, or conversation, with Kidd he had made a rather beautiful or attractive picture out of what he intended to develop so that the airplanes would fly in and gasoline and various and sundry things would be sold that people around a fishing resort buy. This association and talk by Kidd with Mullican had convinced Kidd of the advantages that it would have and apparently the money that it would make. As a result of this Kidd introduced Mullican to one, Charles Ramsey.
In a conversation with Ramsey, Mullican represented to him that the site of the project was being developed at that time and that bulldozer work was also going on at the time, according to Ramsey's testimony. This testimony though as to the fact that it was going on at that time was very much weakened in the statements immediately preceding and following to the effect that he, Ramsey, knew Kidd and more or less entered into the arrangement with Mullican on Kidd's recommendation. Ramsey as a result of these representations by Mullican gave Mullican $300.00. He doesn't remember whether it was by check or cash, but this is immaterial. At the time this money was given to Mullican he gave Ramsey and his wife a receipt for $300.00 and a note payable two years after date with six (6%) per cent interest. It was the further understanding that the project would be incorporated and that Ramsey would have an opportunity to buy shares of stock in the corporation with his $300.00 and any interest that it might have earned. All money was to be deposited in a bank at McMinnville until sufficient money was raised and then work on the project would begin.
Another witness testifies that the bulldozing work was done in the fall of 1957, while the time of Ramsey's conversation with Mullican was in March, 1958, and the proof does not show that there was any bulldozing work going on at the time of this conversation.
Similarly representations were made to Kidd, who as heretofore said had been acquainted with Mullican a long time before and had been over various parts of the State around Center Hill and into Kentucky with Mullican. Kidd testifies that he knew the site and had been over it and felt that under the circumstances it was a good proposition. Anyhow as a result of these conversations Kidd let Mullican have $500.00 and was given a note and receipt very similar to that given Ramsey, with similar representations and promises that he would be given an opportunity to buy stock with this money. According to this witness, Kidd, Mullican represented to him that about 20 acres of the project had been cleared by a bulldozer, and the only reason work had been stopped was because people began to speculate about the development, and he stopped it because he feared that the price of adjacent land would become so high that additional purchases could not be made at a later time.
Others made similar advances of money to Mullican in similar transactions as above detailed, but it isn't claimed by the State that there were any promises made which would bring their transactions under the false pretense statute. These payments of Ramsey and Kidd to Mullican upon which the conviction was sustained and upon which the State seeks to affirm the conviction were made in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bray
...The essential elements of the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses were enumerated by the Supreme Court in Mullican v. State, 210 Tenn. 505, 360 S.W.2d 35 (1962) as The false representation made must be representative of a past or existing fact, whether it be by oral or written words......
-
State v. McDonald
...Court did not directly address the necessity for reliance. The latest pertinent pronouncement of this Court was in Mullican v. State, 210 Tenn. 505, 360 S.W.2d 35 (1962) wherein the Court enumerated the elements of the offense (T)he false representation made must be representation of a past......
-
Myer, III v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, No. M2009-01644-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 3/3/2010)
... ... The Metropolitan Government took an easement over the property by eminent domain and the State built the Victory Memorial Bridge over part of it. The Metropolitan Government later transferred its interest in the property to the State. Much ... ...
-
Horn v. State
...to whom the representation was made himself relied thereon, to the ultimate detriment of the victim. In the case of Mullican v. State, 210 Tenn. 505, 360 S.W.2d 35 (1962), the Court "It seems to us that under this statute the intent to defraud is the gravamen or an essential element in the ......