Legal Opinion

Sturdivant v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided May 24, 1932No. 5 Div. 874PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSamford, J.

The prosecution in this case is brought under section 3403 of the Code of 1928, and not under section 3968. Under this prosecution the element of fraudulent intent does not enter into the issues. If, being an individual banker, officer, or manager of an incorporated bank or individual banker, he receives a deposit for such bank, knowing or having good reason to believe at the time such deposit is made that such bank or individual banker is insolvent or in a failing condition, the defendant would be guilty under section 3408, supra, either of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending upon the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. BeachIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Ellis v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Eureka County Bank Habeas Corpus CasesNevada Supreme Court · 1912
  4. State v. WeltyWashington Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Jones v. KeithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jordan v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1934
  2. Werner v. CrippenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API