{
  "id": 8621223,
  "name": "STATE v. C. C. BLAIR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blair",
  "decision_date": "1946-12-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "70",
  "last_page": "71",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "227 N.C. 70"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "220 N. C., 519",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11305933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0519-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 657",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0300-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1486,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.943004060014475e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46243642003838836
    },
    "sha256": "1e9a1a4bc85ed900199d3b520d8d26c7b0968b83017a4cd5b9562b9da6d6a6e7",
    "simhash": "1:5fc57f1f2788cb61",
    "word_count": 243
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. C. C. BLAIR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe embezzlement statute creates an offense unknown at common law. It applies only to the classes of persons therein nam\u00e9d. S. v. Whitehurst, 212 N. C., 300, 193 S. E., 657; S. 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\u2019s motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit.\nThe defendant did not appeal from the judgment pronounced in the ease (4430) consolidated and tried with this indictment.' Hence, said judgment is not affected by this opinion.\nThe judgment below (4477) is\nEeversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.",
      "Z. H. Howerton for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. C. C. BLAIR.\n(Filed 11 December, 1946.)\nEmbezzlement \u00a7 1\u2014\nThe offense of embezzlement is exclusively statutory, and the statute does not embrace a vendor in an executory contract of purchase and sale.\nAppeal by defendant from Hamilton, Special Judge, at March Term, 1946, of Gtuileobd.\nReversed.\nCriminal prosecution under bill of indictment charging that defendant, being \u201cthe agent, consignee, clerk, employee' and servant\u201d of O. A. Nash and P. W. Hendrix, did feloniously embezzle $400 entrusted to him by said Nash and Hendrix.\nThe money delivered to the defendant was received and accepted as earnest money.\nThere was a verdict of guilty. The court pronounced judgment on the verdict and defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nZ. H. Howerton for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0070-01",
  "first_page_order": 118,
  "last_page_order": 119
}