Legal Opinion

State v. . Blair

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 11, 1946PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The embezzlement statute creates an offense unknown at common law. It applies only to the classes of persons therein naméd. S. v. Whitehurst, 212 N. C., 300, 193 S. E., 657; S. v. Eurell, 220 N. C., 519, 17 S. E. (2d), 669. It does not embrace a vendor in an executory contract of purchase and sale. Hence the court below erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit.

The defendant did not appeal from the judgment pronounced in the ease (4430) consolidated and tried with this indictment.' Hence, said judgment is not affected by this opinion.

The judgment below (4477) is

E…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. . WhitehurstSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  2. State v. . EurellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. State v. RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API