Dees v. State, 152 S.E. 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930). · Go Syfert
Search
Dees v. State, 152 S.E. 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Canal Insurance Co. v. Tate (gactapp, 1965-02-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canal Insurance Co. v. Tate (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1965 · confidence medium
Chapman v. State, 18 Ga. 736, 738 (1); Gresham v. State, 216 Ga. 106, 109 (5) ( 115 SE2d 191 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 (1, 2) ( 70 SE 989 ); Dees v. State, 41 Ga. App. 321, 322 ( 152 SE 913 ).
cited Cited "see" United Motor Freight Terminal Co. Inc. v. Hixon
Ga. Ct. App. · 1949 · signal: see · confidence high
See Loeb v. State, supra. The trial judge amply covered the subject-matter of the request in his general charge and this assignment of error is without merit.
discussed Cited "see" Council Bros. v. International Agricultural Corp. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1932 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dees v. State, 41 Ga. App. 321 (5) ( 152 S. E. 913 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bankers Fidelity Life Insurance v. Wright (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1958 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Dees v. State, 41 Ga. App. 321 (6) ( 152 S. E. 913 ); Morris v. State, 185 Ga. 67 (2) ( 194 S. E. 214 ).
DEES
v.
State
20292.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Apr 15, 1930.
152 S.E. 913
P. Q. Bryan, for plaintiff in error., G. G. Spurlin, solicitor-general, contra.
Bloodworth.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
Bloodworth, J.

We will enlarge upon headnote 7 only. There is no error in the portion of the charge incorporated in ground 8 of the motion. There is no evidence to authorize any insistence that the articles which were alleged to have been stolen belonged to a man named R. E. Strickland instead of R. E. Stribling, or that the person named in the indictment as R. E. Strickland and marked thereon as the prosecutor is a different individual from the person who testified in the case and claimed to have owned the articles stolen. In Watkins v. State, 18 Ga. App. 500 (89 S. E. 624), this court said: “Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test in settling the question of variance between allegata and probata. Identitate personae and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue in cases of this character. . . The only sane and sound test is that of identity of person.” In Chapman v. State, 18 Ga. 736, 738 (1), the Supreme Court said: “The change continually going on in the mode of spelling names — the different pronunciation of the same name, according to the circumstances and condition in life of the owner, makes the objection, upon the score of discrepancy, much less material than formerly. Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test. Identitate personae and not identitate nominis, is and should always have been the true and only issue.” See Fielding v. State, 30 Ga. App. 664 (118 S. E. 601); Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 928 (1) (39 S. E. 297); Webb v. State, 149 Ga. 211 (1) (99 S. E. 630).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Luke, J., dissents.