Court Opinion

ID: 6549612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:22:58.31865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:04.333381
License: Public Domain

Kirby, J., (after stating the facts). It is contended that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment and in the admission and exclusion of certain testimony. It is necessary, in cases of removing mortgaged property, upon which a lien exists, with the intention to defeat the holder of the lien and the collection of the debt secured by the mortgage or deed of trust, to allege the existence of the debt at the time of the commission of the offense, for, unless there be a debt in existence, there can be no lien. McCaskill v. State, 68 Ark. 491. The indictment herein charges that the appellant, with the intent to cheat and defraud one Eugene Williams, sold the cow, of a certain value upon which “the said Eugene Williams then and there had a lien by virtue of a certain mortgage or deed of trust, duly executed; * * * that the said Chester Osborne’s sale of said cow was with the felonious intent to defeat the said Eugene Williams, the holder of said lien, in the collection of his debt, which was more than ten dollars, etc. ’ ’ The indictment does not say in exact words that there was a debt in existence from appellant to Eugene Williams, but it does say that he sold the cow with the felonious intent to defeat the holder of said lien in the collection of his debt, which was a sufficient allegation of the existence of the debt. We do not think the court erred in the admission of the trust deed executed by the appellant to S. H. Mann, as trustee, to secure the payment of the debt to Eugene Williams, under the allegations of the indictment. The court has held that a mortgage and deed of trust are the same in legal effect, and it conld make no difference to the accused in giving him notice of the offense with which he was charged, and there is no variance from the allegations of the indictment in the proof of the deed of trust. We are of the opinion that the court did err, however, in refusing to allow appellant to introduce his mortgage to Scott Bond & Sons, in which the red cow, with the disposition of which he was charged in the indictment, was included. It also erred in refusing to permit the appellant to prove the amount of the indebtedness still existing, secured by the mortgage to Scott Bond & Sons, as well as the value of the property included in it, at the time of the sale of the cow. There must be shown to exist an intention to defeat the holder of the hen in the collection of his debt, or facts from which such intention can reasonably be inferred, in order to convict the defendant of the charge, and if he could show, as he had the right to do, that the property was covered by a prior mortgage to secure a debt past due and still existing, much larger in amount than the entire value of all the property included therein, and that he sold the cow with the approval of the holder of the said prior mortgage, it would, if not conclusive, tend strongly to show that there was no intention by the sale to defeat the holder of the lien under the second mortgage in the collection of Ms debt, and these errors were highly prejudicial to appellant. The other contentions are not noticed, as the matters complained of will doubtless not occur upon a second trial. For the errors indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.