State v. Tatum

205 N.C. 784
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 24, 1934·Published

Opinion

BeogdeN, J.

There is no essential difference between a post-dated check and one given with the understanding or agreement that the same shall be held and presented by the owner at a future date. It was the function of the jury to determine whether such agreement was made. If it was made at the time of giving the check, the defendant would not be guilty upon the facts disclosed by the record. See S. v. Crawford, 198 N. C., 522, 152 S. E., 504; S. v. Franklin, 204 N. C., 157; S. v. Byrd, 204 N. C., 162.

New trial.

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

State v. Tatum, 205 N.C. 784 (N.C. 1934).

205 N.C. 784 (State v. Tatum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Franklin
167 S.E. 569 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
State v. . Crawford
152 S.E. 504 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
State v. . Byrd
167 S.E. 626 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)