Ownbey v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1952 |
| Citation | 253 S.W.2d 726,194 Tenn. 500,30 Beeler 500 |
| Parties | OWNBEY v. STATE. 30 Beeler 500, 194 Tenn. 500, 253 S.W.2d 726 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Alfred W. Taylor, Johnson City, for plaintiff.
Knox Bigham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant appeals from two convictions of obtaining goods by false pretenses and concurrent sentences of three years in the penitentiary for the offenses.
Defendant's true name is R. M. Maples, but in October 1950, representing himself to be one Floyd W. Ownbey, under a conditional sales contract, he purchased certain electrical equipment from the Brashear Electric Company at Kingsport, Tennessee. Before agreeing to the sale of the merchandise, the Electric Company made inquiry about the credit rating of Ownbey, and finding it to be satisfactory, made the sale. On subsequent dates, having made the required cash payments, the defendant purchased other electrical equipment by three subsequent conditional sales contracts. By falsely representing himself to be Ownbey, defendant thus purchased from the Brashear Electric Company a Hotpoint ironer of the value of $99.95, an oil heater of the value of $139, a refrigerator of the value of $239.95, and an electric range of the value of $150.
In November 1950, the defendant representing himself to be Ownbey, went to the W. B. Greene Company of Kingsport, and there purchased a movie camera of the value of $175. He represented himself to be Ownbey, gave Brashear Electric Company as a credit reference, made the cash payment, and signed Ownbey's name to the documents evidencing the deferred payments. Later, he returned to the Greene Company and ordered a diamond ring of the value of $700, making a down payment of $50, and in the name of Ownbey, agreeing to pay for the deferred balance. He never received the ring because he had defaulted on his deferred payments on the other merchandise, both at the Electric Company and at Greene Company before the ordered ring had been received. Before making the contract of sale of the movie camera, the Greene Company investigated the credit rating of Ownbey with the Brashear Electric Company, and on information so received, agreed to extend the credit.
The foregoing facts are admitted, but the defense is that Ownbey was an employee of Maples; that Maples acted for Ownbey, and on his authority; that the merchandise was delivered to Ownbey, himself, and not to Maples, and that Maples did not make the false representation of his identity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polisher v. State
...159 Me. 223, 191 A.2d 114, 118 (1963); People v. Andrews, 165 Cal.App.2d 626, 332 P.2d 408, 415 (1958); Ownbey v. State, 194 Tenn. 500, 253 S.W.2d 726, 727 (1952); Kemp v. State, 61 Ga.App. 337, 6 S.E.2d 196, 197 (1939); State v. Reysa, 198 Iowa 496, 199 N.W. 1000, 1004 (1924); People v. Wo......
-
State v. Urie
...(1965), hearing denied by Cal.S.Ct. April 6, 1965, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 834, 86 S.Ct. 77, 15 L.Ed.2d 77 (1965), Ownbey v. State, 194 Tenn. 500, 253 S.W.2d 726 (1952). Appellant asserts five assignments of error, his primary contention being that there was no corroborating evidence to prov......
-
Mullican v. State
...because the repayment of a loan obtained by false pretenses does not exonerate the deceiver from criminal prosecution. Ownbey v. State, 194 Tenn. 500, 253 S.W.2d 726; Annotation, 24 A.L.R., 397; 52 A.L.R., 1167; Ann.Cas., 1916C, These indictments are based upon the violation of Sec. 39-1901......