State v. Hinson
This text of 135 S.E.2d 583 (State v. Hinson) 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.
Opinion
We find no evidence sufficient to support a finding that defendant obtained money from Dixon by means of a representation that he (defendant) “was a field representative of the Prudential Life Insurance Co. with authority to make loans for said company.” Indeed, the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that defendant made such representation to Dixon. Moreover, if such representation were made, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that it was false. The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that the evidence does not support the indictment and that defendant’s motion to dismiss as of nonsuit should have been allowed.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
135 S.E.2d 583, 261 N.C. 614, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hinson-nc-1964.