Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1889

Armstrong v. State

Armstrong v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 10, 1889 · White
27 Tex. Ct. App. 462; 11 S.W. 462; 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 63

Armstrong v. State

Opinion of the Court

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant in each of the above cases has been convicted of a fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property. An indictment, to be sufficient to charge the offense of selling or disposing of mortgaged property with intent to defraud, must allege the name of the person to whom the mortgaged property was disposed or sold, or that the name of such person was unknown to the grand jury. (Smith v. The State, 26 Texas Ct. App., 577; Presley v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 494; Alexander v. The State, ante. 94.)

Because the indictments in. these cases are fatally defective in this regard, the judgments are reversed and the prosecutions dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.