State v. . Blair

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Blair

40 S.E.2d 460, 227 N.C. 70, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 346

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 11, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 S.E.2d 460 (State v. . Blair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Blair, 40 S.E.2d 460, 227 N.C. 70, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 346 (N.C. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The embezzlement statute creates an offense unknown at common law. It applies only to the classes of persons therein naméd. *71 S. v. Whitehurst, 212 N. C., 300, 193 S. E., 657; S. v. Eurell, 220 N. C., 519, 17 S. E. (2d), 669. It does not embrace a vendor in an executory contract of purchase and sale. Hence the court below erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit.

The defendant did not appeal from the judgment pronounced in the ease (4430) consolidated and tried with this indictment.' Hence, said judgment is not affected by this opinion.

The judgment below (4477) is

Eeversed.

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