State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 16 October 1884
• Docket Number: 11,782
• Citation: 98 Ind. 70
• Parties: The State v. Miller
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

98 Ind. 70

The State v. Miller

No. 11,782

Supreme Court of Indiana

October 16, 1884

From the Wayne Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed.

F. T Hord, Attorney General, and C. E. Shiveley, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.

T. J Study, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott C. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appellee's motion to quash the indictment. The charging part of the indictment reads as follows: "The defendant did then and there convey and assign by a good and sufficient deed of general warranty to one John M. Overspeck the following described real estate" (here follows a full description), "for a valuable consideration then and there paid by said John M. Overspeck to said defendant George W. Miller, to wit, valuable property of the value of three hundred dollars, and that thereafter, to wit, on the 19th day of March, 1883, said defendant did then and there unlawfully, wilfully, purposely, corruptly and fraudulently convey and assign to one Anna M. Jackson, of said county and State, by a deed of general warranty, for a valuable consideration, the real estate aforesaid, with intent then and there and thereby to unlawfully, wilfully, purposely, corruptly and fraudulently cheat and injure the said Anna M. Jackson as purchaser as aforesaid of the above real estate."

This indictment is based on section 2156 of the criminal code which reads thus: "Whoever, being a party to the sale and delivery of any goods or chattels, or to any conveyance or assignment of any interest in land, or of any profits issuing therefrom, or of any goods, chattels, or things in action, made to defraud purchasers, or to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors; or whoever, being privy to or knowing of such sale or conveyance, willingly puts the same in use, as having been made in good faith,--shall, upon conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the county jail not more than twelve months nor less than one month and be fined not more than two hundred dollars."

There are two branches to this section and the first makes it an offence to be a party to a conveyance or assignment made with the intent to defraud creditors or purchasers. The object of the statute is to punish one, who, with a corrupt purpose, becomes a party to a conveyance or assignment made to defraud a creditor or a purchaser, and the question here is, whether this indictment shows, with sufficient certainty, that the appellee was a party to a conveyance made to defraud a purchaser. We do not think that it is necessary to do more than state such facts as show that the conveyance which a party makes was made to defraud creditors, it is not necessary to show that the conveyance made to him was fraudulent. It is enough to show that the conveyance which the accused made was corruptly executed to defraud a purchaser.

The statement of the intent is in form and substance all that the law requires. 1 Whart. Prec. 264, n.; Shinn v. State, 68 Ind. 423; Moore Crim. Law, section 746. It is obvious that an intent can not be described like a physical, tangible fact, and, therefore, all that need be done is to...