Commonwealth v. Miller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Miller

170 A. 694, 111 Pa. Super. 459, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 348

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 16, 1933

DocketAppeal 358

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A. 694 (Commonwealth v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Miller, 170 A. 694, 111 Pa. Super. 459, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 348 (Pa. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

James, J.,

The defendant was indicted on September 20, 1932 for having on the 22nd day of September, 1928 • and the 28th day of September, 1928- aided and abetted one Alexander D. Robinson, vice-president and treasurer of the Northwestern Trust Company, in the embezzlement, abstraction and wilful misapplication of certain funds of the Northwestern Trust Company. Defendant was not an officer, director, receiver, superintendent, manager, broker, attorney, agent, employee, or member of said banking institution. Defendant moved to quash and the motion was sustained, from which order an appeal was taken by the Commonwealth.

The, same question raised in this appeal is involved in the appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Russell H. Foster, No. 356, October Term, 1933, 111 Pa. Superior Ct. 451, in which an opinion *461 has this day been filed sustaining the action of the court below in quashing the indictment. For the reasons therein set forth the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

James, J.,

The defendant was indicted on September 20, 1932 for having on the 22nd day of September, 1928 • and the 28th day of September, 1928- aided and abetted one Alexander D. Robinson, vice-president and treasurer of the Northwestern Trust Company, in the embezzlement, abstraction and wilful misapplication of certain funds of the Northwestern Trust Company. Defendant was not an officer, director, receiver, superintendent, manager, broker, attorney, agent, employee, or member of said banking institution. Defendant moved to quash and the motion was sustained, from which order an appeal was taken by the Commonwealth.

The, same question raised in this appeal is involved in the appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Russell H. Foster, No. 356, October Term, 1933, 111 Pa. Superior Ct. 451, in which an opinion *461 has this day been filed sustaining the action of the court below in quashing the indictment. For the reasons therein set forth the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A. 694, 111 Pa. Super. 459, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-miller-pasuperct-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack