Legal Opinion

Odom v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided February 5, 1924No. 7 Div. 920PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

The appellant was convicted for violation of the prohibition laws.

The indictment named the defendant as Burrell Odom, and he interposed a plea of misnomer, and averred that his name was Burl Odam. The demurrer to the plea was properly sustained on the ground that the names Burl Odam and Burrell Odom are idem sonans. The following words have been held idem sonans: “Booth and Boothe,” Jackson’s Case, 74 Ala. 26; “Burdet and Boudet,” “Boredet and Bouredet,” Aaron’s Case, 87 Ala. 106; “Edmundson and Edminson,” Edmundson’s Case, 17 Ala. 179, 52 Am. Dec. 169.

The defendant interposed a plea of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jackson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
  2. Edmundson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
  3. Gilbert v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. Skinner v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
  5. Gamlin v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1923

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McCoy v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
  2. McCullar v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1925
  3. Ex Parte Burrell OdomSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API