State v. Russell

Mississippi Supreme Court

State v. Russell

53 So. 954, 98 Miss. 64

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1910·Published

Opinion

Whitfield, C.

The defendants conld not he guilty of embezzlement, if the money which they are alleged to have embezzled never came into their possession. The very utmost that can be claimed for the testimony in this record is that it' may show that the defendants are indebted to the insurance company. The action' of the court below was correct. Affirmed.

Per Curiam;. The above opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court, and for reasons therein indicated the judgment is affirmed.

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

Whitfield, C.

The defendants conld not he guilty of embezzlement, if the money which they are alleged to have embezzled never came into their possession. The very utmost that can be claimed for the testimony in this record is that it' may show that the defendants are indebted to the insurance company. The action' of the court below was correct. Affirmed.

Per Curiam;. The above opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court, and for reasons therein indicated the judgment is affirmed.

State v. Russell, 53 So. 954, 98 Miss. 64 (Mich. 1910).

Pincite

53 So. 954 (State v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.