# Parnell v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 29, 1959 · 170 Tex. Crim. 30

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771469

## Case

- **Full name:** Dallas M. Parnell v. State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 29, 1959
- **Citations:** 170 Tex. Crim. 30; 339 S.W.2d 49; 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2681
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Morrison
- **Judges:** Woodley, Morrison, Davidson
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771469

## Opinion text

*53 ON SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant forcefully challenges the conclusion in our original opinion that the money which was embezzled belonged to the insurance company and again calls our attention to the fact that the checks which were used to pay off the promoters’ notes were drawn on the investment company and not the insurance company. The answer to such contention lies in the entry made in the insurance company books which showed that the insurance company had transferred on its books the sum of $175,801.68 to the investment company with the notation, “Stock sold by investment company for individual stockholders, proceeds of which were erroneously transferred to insurance company.” Whether or not the funds had been “erroneously transferred to the insurance company” is not the question. It was the act of making this entry that took money from the insurance company and placed it in the investment company, where it was used to pay off the notes, that made the embezzlement here charged possible.
We have again carefully considered the entire record and cannot bring ourselves to agree with appellant’s contention that no crime has been shown or that it would be impossible for a majority of the officers and directors to embezzle corporate funds merely because they constituted such a majority.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771469. Public record. Not legal advice.