Legal Opinion

State v. Dunning

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 5, 1906PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from Ringgold District Court.— Hon. H. K. Evans, Judge-. The defendant was convicted of fraudulent banking, and appeals. —

1Opinion of the CourtSherwin, J.

Section 1884 of the Code prohibits the receipt of deposits by an insolvent bank and others engaged in like business, and section 1885 fixes the penalty for a violation of the preceding section. So far as it is material to our present inquiry section 1885 is as follows: “If any such bank, banking house, exchange broker, deposit office, firm, company, corporation or person shall receive or accept on deposit any such deposit, as aforesaid, when insolvent, any owner, officer, director, cashier, manager, member or person knowing of such insolvency who shall knowingly receive or accept, be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Meadowcroft v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Utley v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  3. State v. DarrahSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
  4. State v. TomblinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. QuackenbushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  2. State v. BevinsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
  3. State v. GregorySupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
  4. State v. ChildersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
  5. Stewart v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1909

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API