Legal Opinion

State v. Hightower

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 27, 1924PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, J.

The pertinent provisions of the statute, under which the Xiresent indictment is laid, are as follows:

“Sec. 85. Insolvent bardas, receiving deposits in. Any person, being an officer or employee of a bank, who receives, or, being an officer thereof, permits an employee to receive money, checks, drafts or other property as a deposit therein, when he has knowledge that such bank is insolvent, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned in the State’s Prison not more than five years, or both.” Chapter 4, Public Laws 1921.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
  2. State v. FelterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
  3. Ellis v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  4. White v. BaileyMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
  5. People v. PaisleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. State v. WatsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. State v. GaitenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Gilbert v. Gulf Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1949
  4. State v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  5. State v. FranksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

24 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