Hornsby v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, C. J.
1. The indictment charged the defendant with burglarizing “the store-house and place of business of the Piedmont Peed and Grocery Company, a corporation.” The name “The Piedmont Peed and Grocery Company” connotes a corporation, and the allegation in the indictment that it was a corporation was surplusage and did not have to *306be proved, since the corporate entity of the company was not in issue upon the defendant’s trial. Ager v. State, 2 Ga. App. 158 (58 S. E. 374); Moore v. State, 27 Ga. App. 781 (2) (110 S. E. 55).
Decided June 26, 1934. Ií. A. Allen, L. O. Dotson, for plaintiff in error.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ager v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Moore v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
3Cited by6 opinions
- William Belvin, James E. Clanton, Clifton Hawkins and Wallace Hawkins v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- King v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
- Hill v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Raptis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- State Ex Rel. Northwestern Engineering Co. v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.