B. N. INMAN
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
B. N. Inman was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses after he fraudulently represented himself as authorized to sell property he did not own, collecting partial payment from victims. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no procedural error.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's rulings. The motion to quash and motion for a bill of particulars were properly overruled, and there was ample testimony to sustain the jury's verdict, making the motion for directed verdict and motion for a new trial properly denied.
“falsely pretending * * * that he represented the owner of described property which, for a named price, he could obtain a conveyance to such other parties, and they being deceived by said pretenses were induced to and did part with money”
States the essential elements of the false pretenses charge and the deception involved
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInman falsely represented that he could obtain a conveyance of described property to buyers at a named price, when in fact he did not represent the ow…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Obtaining Money By False Pretenses cases and more on FLexlaw
On February 25, 1937, plaintiff in error, B. N. Inman, was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval, Count)', Florida, by the County Solicitor thereof on a charge of obtaining money by false pretenses designedly and with the intent to defraud, falsely pretending * * * that he represented the owner of described property which, for a named price, he could obtain a conveyance to such other parties, and they being deceived by said pretenses were induced to and did part with money and that the defendant below obtained the money knowingly and designedly by false pretenses, with the intent to cheat such persons, whereas in fact the defendant did not represent the owner and had no authority to sell the property.
The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, was placed upon trial, convicted and sentenced to the State prison for a period of one year.
The record shows that counsel for plaintiff in error seasonably filed a motion to quash the information and for a bill of particulars and each was by the lower court overruled. An appeal has been perfected to this Court and a number of assignments argued as error. It appears that the lower court ruled correctly on the motion to quash and the motion for a bill of particulars.
It is next contended that the lower court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and likewise erred in denying plaintiff in error’s motion for a new trial. The State, to maintain its case, offered the testimony of Mr. W. J. Branan and Attorney Fred Noble. It appears that Mr. Noble represented the owners of the land in question in renting the property and collecting the rents. The de- *791. fendant entered into an agreement to sell the property for the owner and accepted. $100.00 in cash as part payment, and the testimony shows that defendant did not even know the owner of the property. It is not necessary to discuss the motion for a new trial as there is ample testimony in the record to sustain the verdict oí the jury. The defendant did not take the stand. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in error to make the errors complained of clearly to appear, as every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial court. See Lewis v. State, 55 Fla. 53, 45 So. 998.
This Court having examined briefs and authorities cited by counsel for the respective parties is of the opinion that there is no error in the record and the ends of justice require that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. We find no error of law or procedure in the record and the judgment below is hereby affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield and Tiiomas, J. J., concur.
Brown and Buford, J. J., dissent.
(dissenting). — I think the motion to quash the information should have been granted because it fails to charge any offense-against-the laws of the State of Florida.
The information attempted to charge a violation of Section 5155 R. G. S., 7258 C. G. L. It is my opinion that the information does not meet the requirements of the rule stated in Clifton v. State, 76 Fla. 244, 79 Sou. 707.
It appears to me that the clear implication of the language of the information is that the alleged victim parted with the money mentioned relying on the promise of the accused that he, the accused, would procure from the owner of certain property a deed conveying the same to the alleged victim. The information does „not allege that the accused *792pretended to, or represented to the alleged victim that he, the accused, had authority to bind the owner to sell and convey the property.
The information charges an immoral act on the part of the accused but not such an act as is within the purview of the statute, supra.
Brown, J., concurs.
Buford, J.
(dissenting). — I think the motion to quash the information should have been granted because it fails to charge any offense-against-the laws of the State of Florida.
The information attempted to charge a violation of Section 5155 R. G. S., 7258 C. G. L. It is my opinion that the information does not meet the requirements of the rule stated in Clifton v. State, 76 Fla. 244, 79 Sou. 707.
It appears to me that the clear implication of the language of the information is that the alleged victim parted with the money mentioned relying on the promise of the accused that he, the accused, would procure from the owner of certain property a deed conveying the same to the alleged victim. The information does „not allege that the accused pretended to, or represented to the alleged victim that he, the accused, had authority to bind the owner to sell and convey the property.
The information charges an immoral act on the part of the accused but not such an act as is within the purview of the statute, supra.
Brown, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…p.1963, 153 So. 2d 351; Sharon v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So. 2d 677. The verdict or judgment of guilt having arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness (see: Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 542, 190 So. 691, 124 A.L.R. 835; Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789, 191 So. 12; San Fratello v. State, Fla. App.1963, 154 So. 2d 327), all inferences to be drawn from the evidence are to be in favor of the verdict or judgment of guilt. See: Cameron v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 864; Boyd v. State, Fla.App.1960…
-
Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…h an alibi, nor did he in any other fashion present a defense which might have raised a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of the facts. The judgment of conviction arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789, 191 So. 12; San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 327; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24. Once the issue of the identity of a criminal defendant was decided by the trier of facts, the sole authority of this appellate court is t…
-
Jeri Lee Haugland and Nils Richard Haugland v. State, 374 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…fendants have appealed these convictions, neither defendant makes any contention in the briefs or oral argument in this cause attacking these [*1032] convictions in any way. We, accordingly, affirm the attempted burglary convictions. Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789, 191 So. 12 (1939); Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). B We equally have no difficulty in affirming the defendants’ convictions for receiving stolen property. The defendant Jeri Lee Haugland does not contest this conviction eithe…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clifton v. State, 76 Fla. 244 (Fla. 1918)