State v. Seguin
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Indictment nol prossed. The case appears in the opinion. The statute makes no distinction in the use of the words; they are evidently.used conjointly to cover every contingency; the statute making a technical discrimination in the use of the words impossible, the pleader should not be required to attempt it;. the indictment alleges that the respondent did grant, bargain and sell the encumbered property to Penley without notice; those are the precise words used in…
Read the full summary
On report. Indictment nol prossed. The case appears in the opinion. The statute makes no distinction in the use of the words; they are evidently.used conjointly to cover every contingency; the statute making a technical discrimination in the use of the words impossible, the pleader should not be required to attempt it;. the indictment alleges that the respondent did grant, bargain and sell the encumbered property to Penley without notice; those are the precise words used in tlie instrument introduced in evidence; those words clearly import an act within the meaning and definition of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
This case comes up on report, under the provisions of Ki. S. (1883), c. 134, § 26. Although no objection to this method of procedure has been made by counsel, yet inasmuch as the legality or propriety of so proceeding, at least in cases of felony, has sometimes been questioned, we think it proper to say-that we hold the case to be properly before us, under the statute.
The respondent was indicted for a violation of 3¿. S. (1883), c. 126, § 1, which so far as it affects this case is as follows: — “Whoever knowingly, and with intent to defraud, sells, conveys, mortgages or pledges to another,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MartinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1936
- State v. DillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976