Moore v. State
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Cornish, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Cornish, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. On the part of plaintiff in error it is respectfully submitted: (1) That under the laws of the state he cannot be adjudged guilty of the crime of embezzlement unless the money claimed to have been embezzled by him was by him lawfully and properly received by virtue of his office; (2) that under the law of the state as it existed when this embezzlement is alleged to have occurred, and as it now exists, the auditor of public accounts was not authorized to receive, and…
1DissentSullivan, J.
I do not concur in the conclusion of the majority and give here the reasons for my dissent.
The constitution of 1875 not only repealed that part of section 32 of the insurance law which authorized the auditor to appropriate to his own use the fees therein specified, but repealed, as well, so much of the section as authorized him to receive such- fees for any purpose. These fees were, by the provisions of the constitution, required to be paid into the treasury of the state in ad*849vanee of the rendition of the service which the statute made it the auditor’s duty to perform. The money then, it must…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bartley v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- State v. SpauldingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- People v. RoyceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. O'BrienTennessee Supreme Court · 1894
- County of San Luis Obispo v. FarnumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.