Legal Opinion

Hornsby v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 26, 1934No. 24138PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Ager v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  2. Moore v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. William Belvin, James E. Clanton, Clifton Hawkins and Wallace Hawkins v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
  2. King v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
  3. Hill v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  4. Raptis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
  5. State Ex Rel. Northwestern Engineering Co. v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1943

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API