State v. Blair, 649.

Citation40 S.E.2d. 460,227 N.C. 70
Decision Date11 December 1946
Docket NumberNo. 649.,649.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
PartiesSTATE. v. BLAIR.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Luther Hamilton, Special Judge.

C. C. Blair was convicted of embezzlement under G.S. § 14-90, and he appeals. Judgment reversed.

Criminal prosecution under bill of indictment charging that defendant, being "the agent, consignee, clerk, employee and servant" of C. A. Nash and P. W. Hendrix, did feloniously embezzle $400 entrusted to him by said Nash and Hendrix.

The money delivered to the defendant was received and accepted as earnest money.

There was a verdict of guilty. The court pronounced judgment on the verdict and defendant appealed.

Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes, and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Z. H. Howerton, of Greensboro, for defendant appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The embezzlement statute, G.S. § 14-90, creates an offense unknown at common law. It applies only to the classes of persons therein named. State v. White-hurst, 212 N.C. 300, 193 S.E. 657, 113 A.L. R. 740; State 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 case (4430) consolidated and tried with this indictment. Hence, said judgment is not affected by this opinion.

The judgment below (4477) is reversed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Thornton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1960
    ...v. McDonald, 133 N.C. 680, 45 S.E. 582; State v. Hill, 91 N.C. 561. The offense of embezzlement is entirely statutory. State v. Blair, 227 N.C. 70, 40 S.E.2d 460; State v. Whitehurst, 212 N.C. 300, 193 S.E. 657, 113 A.L.R. 740; State v. Maslin, supra; State v. McDonald, The indictment was d......
  • State v. Ross, 577
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1967
    ...statute. State v. Whitehurst, 212 N.C. 300, 193 S.E. 657, 113 A.L.R. 740; State v. Eurell, 220 N.C. 519, 17 S.E.2d 669; State v. Blair, 227 N.C. 70, 40 S.E.2d 460. In State v. Whitehurst, supra, Stacy, C.J., set forth the history, including the successive amendments, of our embezzlement sta......
  • State v. Blair
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1946

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT