State v. Krasher

Decision Date31 January 1908
Docket NumberNo. 21,063.,21,063.
Citation170 Ind. 43,83 N.E. 498
PartiesSTATE v. KRASHER et al.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wabash County; A. H. Plummer Judge.

Daniel Krasher and another were indicted for violating the state banking law, and from an order quashing the indictment, the state appeals. Affirmed.F. G. Carpenter, Jas. Bingham, Alexander G. Cavins, Edward M. White, and Henry M. Dowling, for the State. Warren G. Sayre, I. E. Gingerick, and W. F. McNagney, for appellees.

GILLETT, J.

The state appeals in this case to procure a reversal of an order quashing an indictment against the appellees. The body of the indictment is as follows: “The grand jury of the county of Wabash upon their oath do present that on the 6th day of June, 1904, at the county of Wabash and state of Indiana, one Daniel Krasher and Dayton C. Harter, who were then and there persons doing a banking business at the town of North Manchester, as president and cashier, respectively, of a banking company organized as a copartnership for the purpose of and doing a banking business in said county and state, under the firm name and style of the ‘Bank of North Manchester,’ did then and there, as such president and cashier aforesaid, of said bank aforesaid, unlawfully, feloniously, and fraudulently receive from one Edward P. Hartman, who was not then and there indebted to said bank aforesaid, its president, cashier, or any member thereof, as such, the sum of forty dollars in money, of the value of forty dollars, on deposit in said bank, the said money then and there deposited was transferable by delivery and was the property of the said Edward P. Hartman. The said bank, at the time the said Daniel Krasher and Dayton C. Harter so received said money on deposit as aforesaid, was then and there insolvent, as the said Daniel Krasher and Dayton C. Harter then and there well knew, whereby the said money so deposited as aforesaid was then and there lost to the said Edward P. Hartman, the depositor as aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Indiana. And the grand jury aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that on the 6th day of June, 1904, at the county of Wabash and state of Indiana, one Daniel Krasher and Dayton C. Harter were then and there persons engaged as president and cashier of a banking company organized as a copartnership for the purpose of and was doing a banking business at the town of North Manchester, then and there situate, under the firm name and style of the ‘Bank of North Manchester,’ did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and fraudulently receive from one Edward P. Hartman, who was not then and there indebted to said bank aforesaid, the sum of forty dollars, in money, of the value of forty dollars, on deposit in said bank, the said money then and there deposited was transferable by delivery, and was the property of the said Edward P. Hartman. The said bank, as such, was, and the copartners composing said banking company were, at the time the said Daniel Krasher and Dayton C. Harter so received said money on deposit as aforesaid, then and there insolvent, as the said Daniel Krasher and Dayton C. Harter then and there well knew, by reason of which said insolvency the money so deposited as aforesaid was then and there and thereby lost to the said Edward P. Hartman, the depositor as aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Indiana.” The statute governing the offense charged is as follows: “If any banker, or broker, or person or persons doing a banking business, or any officer of any banking company, or incorporated bank doing business in this state, shall fraudulently receive from any person or persons, firm, company, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Button v. Nevin
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • October 4, 1934
    ... ... other parties, against James Benjamin Button, at one time ... [36 P.2d 569] ... superintendent of banks of the state of Arizona, and National ... Surety Company, a corporation, the surety on Button's ... official bond, hereinafter called defendants, to recover ... subrogation. Buhl Highway Dist. v. Allred, ... 41 Idaho 54, 238 P. 298; State v. Krasher, ... 170 Ind. 43, 83 N.E. 498; Meadowcroft [44 Ariz. 261] ... et al. v. People, 163 Ill. 56, 45 N.E. 991, ... 54 Am. St. Rep. 447, 35 L.R.A. 176; ... ...
  • State v. Childers
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1927
    ...the rule adopted in this state. Meadowcroft v. People, 163 Ill. 56, 45 N. E. 991, 35 L. R. A. 176, 54 Am. St. Rep. 447;State v. Krasher, 170 Ind. 43, 83 N. E. 498; Ex parte Rovnianek, 41 Nev. 141, 168 P. 327; Cyclopedia Criminal Law, § 1294 et seq. A partnership is a legal entity in this st......
  • State v. Childers
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1927
    ... ... this rule prevails, a partnership is not recognized as a ... distinct and independent legal entity, and this distinguishes ... the holding in such jurisdictions from the rule adopted in ... this state. Meadowcroft v. People, 163 Ill. 56 (45 ... N.E. 991); State v. Krasher, 170 Ind. 43 (83 N.E ... 498); In re Application of Rovnianek, 41 Nev. 141 ... (168 P. 327); 2 Cyclopedia Criminal Law, Section 1294 et ... seq. A partnership is a legal entity in this state, and ... is so recognized by the statute. State v. Kiefer, ... supra; Winter v. Pipher & Co., 96 Iowa ... ...
  • Lewis v. Joseph Hartley & Sons Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 18, 1949
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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