Legal Opinion

State v. Whitehurst

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 3, 1937PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStact, C. J.

Does tbe fraudulent misapplication of receivership funds by tbe receiver of a State bank come within tbe purview of tbe embezzlement statute, C. S., 4268 ? We agree witb tbe trial court that a receiver of an insolvent corporation is not within tbe terms of tbe statute.

A receiver is not eo nomine mentioned in tbe statute, and it is not thought that tbe language is broad enough to include a receiver of an insolvent corporation under tbe rule of ejusdem generis. See Galkins *302v. Stake, 18 Obio State, 366, as reported in 98 Am. Dee., 121, with, valuable note covering the whole subject.

As a…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. United States v. WiltbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
  2. United States v. WeitzelSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. State v. . BarksdaleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  4. State v. . HumphriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. State v. . EarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. SpencerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. State v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  3. State v. RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. State v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. State v. WeaverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2005

17 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