State v. O'Neil
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Martin v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2025)
- Buddin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (S.C. 1967)
- In re Flanagan (New York Surrogate's Court 1929)
- Flynn v. Dougherty (Mont. 1926)
- Metzger v. Metzger (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1924)
- Girard Trust Co. v. Cheeseman (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1921)
- Wright v. Keasbey (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1917)
- Cooke v. Women's Medical College (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1913)
- Rogers v. Baily (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1909)
- Harris v. Ingalls (N.H. 1907)
- Campbell v. Cole (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1906)
- Sanderson v. Sanderson's Administrators (Fla. 1883)
- Bank of Old Dominion v. McVeigh (Va. 1877)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this case there was no argument, 'and no written opinion, the Court deciding, that the circuit judge did right in arresting the judgment; that the indictment should have charged that the passing, &c., was with- the intention to defraud the person to whom it was passed.
The action of the Circuit Court was therefore affirmed ;
Judgment affirmed.
An indictment for fraudulent possessionof countifeit notes under Section 4724 of tlie Code (Act of 1829, chapter 23, section 33,) need not aver a felonious intent. Perdue v. State, 2 Humph. 494. .But it must aver an intent to defraud. Fergus v. State, 6 Yerg. 345; Owen v. State, 5 Sneed, 493.
Under Section 6135 of the Code, it is not necessary to aver that the defendant kept the notes with the intent to pass the same. Sizemore v. The State, 3 Head, 26.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.