State v. Stevens
Citations
- 16 S.D. 309
- 92 N.W. 420
- 1902 S.D. LEXIS 115
Syllabus
<p>1. In the prosecution of a bank cashier for receiving a deposit after the bank’s insolvency, under an indictment alleging that the bank was a corporation, it is sufficient proof of defacto corporate existence to show that an attempt was made to organize a corporation, and that the institution was conducted and held out to the public as a corporation, and that a statute existed at the time of the indictment authorizing such incorporation, though no such statute existed when the attempt to organize was made.</p> <p>2. In a prosecution of a bank cashier for receiving a deposit after the bank’s insolvency, false statements made by him to the public bank examiner tending to establish the allegation of the indictment that the bank was a corporation, and also to show insolvency, and the accused’s guilty knowledge thereof, are admissible, though constituting an independent offense.</p> <p>3. In the prosecution of a bank cashier for receiving, a deposit after the bank’s insolvency, the testimony of a witness that one of his long overdue notes, given to the bank, was accommodation paper, and the introduction of his written assumption of its payment, executed concurrently with the note, are admissible as pertinent to the issue of insolvency.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution of a bank cashier for receiving a deposit after the bank’s insolvency, it was proper to permit the depositor to refresh his memory as to the denomination of the money deposited by referring to the original deposit slip, written by him at the time of the deposit.</p> <p>5. In a prosecution of a bank cashier for receiving a deposit after the bank’s insolvency, the bank books being in evidence, it was proper to permit the public bank examiner, who had inquired into the financial condition of the bank; to refresh his memory by referring to a memorandum made at the time of such examination.</p> <p>6. In a prosecution of a bank cashier for receiving a deposit after the bank’s insolvency, if was error to permit the p
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Ridout v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1930-07-14· cited 43×
- State v. KieferSupreme Court of Iowa· 1917-06-26· cited 14×
- State v. KightSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1908-12-31· cited 8×
- Brown v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1923-11-21· cited 4×
- Mason v. StevensSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1902-11-26· cited 1×
- Pruett v. MidkiffAppellate Court of Illinois· 1933-12-26· cited 1×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. GoldensonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-05-29· cited 105×
- State v. CadwellSupreme Court of Iowa· 1890-02-07· cited 52×
- People v. SchwartzCalifornia Supreme Court· 1867-07-01· cited 27×
- Hoener v. KochIllinois Supreme Court· 1877-01-15· cited 22×
- State v. HalpinSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1902-08-13· cited 17×
- Daniels v. PalmerSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1886-07-06· cited 15×
- Tetrault v. O'ConnorNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1898-06-20· cited 9×
- Grand Forks Lumber & Coal Co. v. TourtelotNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1898-06-01· cited 4×
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.