State v. Youngbluth
| Decision Date | 20 October 1910 |
| Citation | 111 P. 240,60 Wash. 383 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. YOUNGBLUTH et al. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; Geo. A. Joiner Judge.
Jacob Youngbluth and another were indicted for receiving bank deposits with knowledge of the bank's insolvency, and from a judgment dismissing the proceeding on demurrer, the state appeals. Affirmed.
Augustus Brawley, for the State.
Million Houser & Shrauger and Quinby & Beagle, for respondents.
The only question in this case is whether the act of 1893 entitled, 'An act punishing bank officers for receiving deposits knowing the bank to be insolvent' (Laws 1893, p. 271), applies to private bankers. Section 1 of the act is as follows: 'Any president, director, manager, cashier or other officer of any banking institution who shall receive or assent to the reception of deposits after he shall have knowledge of the fact that such banking institution is insolvent or in failing circumstances, shall be guilty of felony and punished as hereinafter provided.' Defendants on or about the 24th day of January, 1905, were copartners, and were conducting a private banking institution at Hamilton in Skagit county. It is charged that they received deposits at a time when the bank was insolvent. The court held upon demurrer that the facts did not constitute a crime, and dismissed the proceeding. It is a familiar rule of statutory construction, needing no citation of authority, that a criminal statute with not be extended beyond its plain terms by construction or implication. The title of the act as well as its phraseology makes it certain that the Legislature had in mind only those banking institutions organized as corporations or associations under existing laws, and doing business by or through officers or agents. The title of the act is directed to officers, and not persons. Individuals do not do business through officers, nor is it to be presumed that copartnerships act through presidents, directors, managers, or cashiers, in the sense in which these words are used to describe officers of a banking institution. It is true that section 2 of the act says that 'any person' violating the provisions of section 1 shall be punished, but under the rule of ejusdem generis the word 'person' must be held to mean persons of the class described in section 1; that is, president, director, etc. We find but one case decided upon a statute identical with the act of 1893. State v. Kelsey, 89 Mo. 623, 1 S.W. 838. The same point was there raised as is raised in this case, and the decision supports us in our view of the law. Other reasons may be suggested. It will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cramer
... ... Const. Law, 279.) ... "Penal ... statutes must be strictly construed and the courts can ... neither add to nor take from them." ( Stewart v ... State, 95 Miss. 627, 49 So. 615; State v ... Dunning, 130 Iowa 678, 107 N.W. 927; State v ... Youngbluth, 60 Wash. 383, 111 P. 240.) ... The ... lower court adopts in its instructions the narrower ... definition of the term as employed in bankruptcy and ... insolvency proceedings, while the defendant contends for the ... broader definition of the term,--for its usual and ordinary ... ...
-
State v. Coria
...plain terms by construction or implication.'" Marble v. Clein, 55 Wash.2d 315, 317, 347 P.2d 830 (1959) (quoting State v. Youngbluth, 60 Wash. 383, 384, 111 P. 240 (1910)). Courts strictly construe statutes by choosing a narrow construction over a broad one. State ex rel. McDonald v. Whatco......
-
Marble v. Clein
...* * * that a criminal statute will not be extended beyond its plain terms by construction or implication. * * *' State v. Youngbluth, 60 Wash. 383, 111 P. 240, 241. Such is the controlling rule A further guide for the construction of this statute is its relation to previous existing law. In......
-
State ex rel. George v. City of Seattle
...construction upon a statute, whether done contemporaneously or by later enactment, such construction will control. State v. Youngbluth, 60 Wash. 383, 111 P. 240; State ex rel. Oregon R. & N. Co. v. Clausen, Wash. 535, 116 P. 7; State v. Herr, 151 Wash. 623, 276 P. 870; 25 R.C.L. 1047, § 275......