Judges: CHAPMAN, J.
Attorneys: Carlton C. Arnow, for Plaintiff in Error;
George Couper Gibbs, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ellis,
Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jun. 30, 1939
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: On February 25, 1937, plaintiff in error, B.N. Inman, was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, 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 t
Summary: On February 25, 1937, plaintiff in error, B.N. Inman, was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, 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 th..
More
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 So. 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.
