Legal Opinion
Farmer v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided June 27, 1916No. 7340PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Accusation of sale of mortgaged property; from city court of Louisville — Judge T. L. Hill presiding. February 23, 1916.
1Opinion of the CourtHodges, J.
1. If an instrument in the form of an absolute bill of sale, was in fact intended only as security for debt, it may be treated as an equitable mortgage.
2. The bill of sale in this case was given for the purpose of securing a debt, and was in its nature a mortgage, upon which a prosecution under section 720 of the Renal Code, for the sale of property after having made a “mortgage-deed” to it, could be based.
3. The elements of the offense inhibited by section 720 of the Penal Code consist of a fraudulent sale, without the consent of the mortgagee, with intent to defraud the mortgagee, and loss…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Wallace v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
- Wyrick v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Austin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976