State v. Acton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Acton

166 A. 156, 110 N.J.L. 449, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 518

DecidedApril 27, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A. 156 (State v. Acton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Acton, 166 A. 156, 110 N.J.L. 449, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 518 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court, reversing the conviction of the defendant below, on the first ground assigned therefor by the Supreme Court “that the proofs submitted *450 failed to disclose the crime charged against the defendant in the indictment, namely, that he feloniously embezzled and converted to his own use moneys belonging to the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and committed, to his care as president and manager of Charles P. Acton, Incorporated,” should be affirmed upon that ground.

The court being of opinion that the second ground upon which reversal was based was not necessary to a decision of the case, and that that question should have been reserved for decision in a ease where it is essential to a determination of the appeal, the vote for affirmance does not include agreement with the second reason assigned by the Supreme Court for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Teen-chard, Lloyd, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Van Buskibic, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court, reversing the conviction of the defendant below, on the first ground assigned therefor by the Supreme Court “that the proofs submitted *450 failed to disclose the crime charged against the defendant in the indictment, namely, that he feloniously embezzled and converted to his own use moneys belonging to the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and committed, to his care as president and manager of Charles P. Acton, Incorporated,” should be affirmed upon that ground.

The court being of opinion that the second ground upon which reversal was based was not necessary to a decision of the case, and that that question should have been reserved for decision in a ease where it is essential to a determination of the appeal, the vote for affirmance does not include agreement with the second reason assigned by the Supreme Court for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Teen-chard, Lloyd, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Van Buskibic, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A. 156, 110 N.J.L. 449, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-acton-nj-1933.