Polk v. State
Polk v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A motion to quash or in arrest of judgment, if it had been made, would have been sustained, as no offence is charged. The offence created by § 2909 of the Code is removing property subject to an encumbrance or lien, as specified, from the county in which it may be, without immediately discharging, such encumbrance or lien. Removal or secreting, and failing promptly to discharge the claim on the property subject, together constitute the offence. And to constitute the offence of removal, it must be completed by the act of the party, or he must cause it to be done directly, and not- remotely as a mere consequence of removing and selling in the county. Therefore, the sale of the cotton in the county, without more, did not constitute the offence, although subsequently, as an incident of trade, it was transported from the county. That was not the act of the defendant. It was not the proximate result of his act, which was completely ended with his sale. A new agency supervened, quite distinct from his act of removal. The sequence was broken and he was not guilty.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- L. H. Polk v. State
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Cbiminal Law. Removing mortgaged property. Section 8909, Code of 1880r applied. Case in judgment. P., having executed a deed of trust upon certain cotton in the county of Y., removed it from the gin in that county in the night time, carried it to a-town in the same county, and on the following day sold it to a merchant there, who sold it to a cotton buyer, who, in the due course of business, shipped it out of the State. P. failed to discharge or satisfy the deed of trust. He was accused, tried and convicted under Section 2909, Code of 1880, which provides that any person who “shall move, or cause to be removed, from the county in which it may be, any personal property which may be the subject of a mortgage, and shall not immediately discharge such incumbrance, shall, upon conviction,” be fined or imprisoned. Held, that P. was not guilty of violating this statute; he did not remove, or directly cause tobe removed, the cotton from the county where it was;, and the removal not being the proximate result of his act, but only a remote cousequence thereof, he is not chargeable therewith.