Legal Opinion
Walter v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided April 16, 1935No. 26,300PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFansler, C. J.
—Appellant was convicted of embezzlement by receiving a deposit when the bank of which he was an officer was insolvent.
The first error assigned by appellant is that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the affidavit. The motion to quash is based upon the theory that the statute under which he was prosecuted, section 2479, Burns 1926, §10-1714, Burns 1933, §2476, Baldwin’s 1934, does not cover embezzlement by officers of loan, trust, and safe deposit companies. This question was fully presented upon a situation identical in all respects with the one at bar, and settled adversely…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bailey v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Manley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Powers v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1933
- Palmer v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Newton v. Standard Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. KociolekSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
- People v. SirhanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Stone v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.