State v. Johnson
Citations
- 109 Kan. 239
- 199 P. 104
- 1921 Kan. LEXIS 114
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Embezzlement — By Officer of Corporation — Sufficiency of Information. The rule that an information charging embezzlement by a bailee must set out the circumstances under which the property was received by the defendant in order that the character of the bailment may be shown has no application to a charge against the officer of a corporation for embezzling its funds.</p> <p>2. Same. The fact that the president of a corporation whose duties include the general supervision of its affairs is described in an information charging him with embezzling its funds, by the additional title of general manager, a position not recognized by the by-laws, is not a ground for' setting aside a conviction.</p> <p>3. Same — Funds in Bank — Defendant’s Custody and Possession of the Same. The funds of a corporation deposited in a bank in its name, which in practice are paid out on checks signed by the president, are in his possession and under his care in such sense as to render him liable for embezzlement in case of his using for his own benefit sums so withdrawn, notwithstanding provisions of the by-laws that the treasurer of the corporation should have custody of the money and that its deposits should be checked against only by him or other persons designated by the management.</p> <p>4. Same — Conversion of Corporate Funds — Accomplished by Drawing Check on Bank Deposit for Officer’s Private Benefit. Conversion of the • funds of a corporation may be accomplished by an officer thereof drawing a check on its .deposit and obtaining money which he uses otherwise than for the benefit of the corporation, although the check when it reaches the bank on which it is drawn is merely marked paid and charged to the corporation’s account, no money being passed over the counter; and the act may constitute embezzlement, although such officer derives no personal benefit from the transaction.</p> <p>5. Same — Corporate Funds in Bank — Cheek Drawn for Private Advant
Judges: Mason
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1972-12-04· cited 37×
- State v. TauscherOregon Supreme Court· 1961-04-12· cited 31×
- State v. WolkowSupreme Court of Kansas· 1922-03-11· cited 21×
- State v. McCormickCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1968-06-18· cited 20×
- Addington v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas· 1967-09-07· cited 16×
- In re MyersSupreme Court of Kansas· 1925-07-11· cited 16×
- State v. MorenoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1968-03-14· cited 15×
- Docking v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1927-01-08· cited 14×
- State v. McManamanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1953-07-06· cited 11×
- State v. CaubleUtah Supreme Court· 1977-04-20· cited 10×
- Evans v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1977-03-08· cited 8×
- State v. WackerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1926-03-06· cited 4×
- State v. FaulknerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1934-06-09· cited 4×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Reeves v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama· 1891-12-15· cited 42×
- Mangham v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1912-08-09· cited 34×
- Carter v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1915-06-30· cited 32×
- Lessee of Washington Sockman v. SockmanOhio Supreme Court· 1849-12-15· cited 29×
- State v. KortgaardSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1895-07-05· cited 21×
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1903-03-07· cited 20×
- People v. LayMichigan Supreme Court· 1916-12-21· cited 16×
- People v. ButtsMichigan Supreme Court· 1901-09-25· cited 12×
- People v. BrittonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1909-10-12· cited 10×
- United States v. RoyerN.D. California· 1903-05-12· cited 3×
- People v. ShermanNew York Supreme Court· 1891-10-23· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.