¶1 I concur in the result. I base my concurrence on the ground that the intent to defraud was not in this case proved. I have doubt whether in any case a person could be convicted under Sec. 103-18-11, R. S. U. 1933, where the circumstances were such as to negative any representation that there were funds in the bank at the time the check was given. I think it unnecessary to decide the case on any other ground. There are statements in the opinion in regard to which I cannot concur. I also agree with Mr. Justice MC-DONOUGH that the order should be that a new trial be granted rather than that the suit be dismissed.
98 Utah 565
100 P.2d 564
State v. Trogstad
Decided March 29, 1940
Utah Supreme Court · decided 1940-03-29
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1940-03-29
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1983
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →