State v. . Law
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Tbe question for decision is wbetber there is a fatal variance between tbe indictment and tbe proof. Stare decisis would seem to require an affirmative answer.
Conceding that tbe automobile in question, even if originally tbe property of one of tbe defendants, was tbe subject of larceny while in tbe custody of tbe officer who bad seized it under authority of law, still it does not follow that its ownership was properly laid in tbe City of Winston-Salem. Tbe City bad no property right in it, special or otherwise. Only tbe officer who seized tbe property was authorized to bold it, take and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. . JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- State v. . WeinsteinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
- State v. . GibsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- State v. . HarbertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- State v. . CarlsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. SpillarsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- State v. EppleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.