Com. v. Yaste

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
Citation166 Pa.Super. 275,70 A.2d 685
Parties, Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,116 COMMONWEALTH v. YASTE et al.
Decision Date12 January 1950

Page 685

70 A.2d 685
166 Pa.Super. 275, Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,116

YASTE et al.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan. 12, 1950.
Application for Allocatur Denied Feb. 21, 1950.

[166 Pa.Super. 276]

Page 686

T. McKeen Chidsey, Attorney General, Charles M. Willits, Special Deputy Attorney General, Harrisburg, H. F. Stambaugh, Special Counsel, William S. Rahauser, District Attorney, Marjory H. Matson, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Joseph A. Rossi, Max V. Schoonmaker, Pittsburgh, for appellees.

[166 Pa.Super. 275] Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS and FINE, JJ.

[166 Pa.Super. 276] HIRT, Judge.

These appeals are from an order quashing an indictment which charged the defendants, and Petroleum Drilling Corporation, with selling securities as dealers or salesmen without having registered with the Securities Commission of Pennsylvania, in violation of the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 748, as re-enacted and amended by the Act of July 10, 1941, P.L. 317, 70 P.S. § 31 et seq. The 'security' alleged to have been sold in each of the nine counts of the indictment is described as 'a one-thirty-second fractional undivided interest in oil, gas and other mineral rights, namely, a one-thirty-second working interest in and to the net proceeds from the sale of any oil and gas which shall be produced and marketed from the Deming Well Number II [or Deming Well III] situate in Washington Township, Tuscarawas County, in the State of Ohio * * *.'

The court quashed the indictment on the ground that the 'working interest' in the proceeds of oil and gas alleged to have been sold in each instance was not a [166 Pa.Super. 277] 'security' within the definition of the Pennsylvania Securities Act, supra, and therefore no offense in violation of it, was charged.

Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Securities Act, supra, 70 P.S. § 33, provides that no dealer or salesman of such dealer shall sell any security in this State unless registered in accordance with the Act. Violation in this respect is made a misdemeanor by § 22, 70 P.S. § 52. Section 2, 70 P.S. § 32, defines a security in this language: 'The following terms shall, unless the context otherwise indicates, have the following respective meanings: (a) 'Security.' The term 'security' means any bond, stock, collateral trust certificate, transferable share, investment contract, certificate under a voting trust agreement, treasury stock, note, debenture, certificate in or under a profit sharing or participation agreement, subscription or preorganization certificate, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of deposit for a security, certificate or instrument representing or secured by an interest

Page 687

in the capital assets or property of any company, other instrument commonly known as a security, or certificate or interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. * * *' (Italics added.) There is merit in this, the Commonwealth's appeal. In our view the subject matter of the sale as charged in each court was a security within the prohibition of the Act. The order will be reversed.

It is only the penal provisions of a law that must be strictly construed. Statutory Construction Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1019, Art. IV, § 58, 46 P.S. § 558. And courts may put a literal construction on a penal clause and a liberal construction on a remedial clause in the same statute. Commonwealth v. Shaleen, 215 Pa. 595, 64 A. 797; Alford v. Raschiatore, 163 Pa.Super. 635, [166 Pa.Super. 278] 63 A.2d 366. The Pennsylvania Securities Act is remedial legislation. Its primary purpose is to protect the investing public. The Act contemplates an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Witter v. Buchanan, 83-2947
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 8, 1985
    ...Com. v. Joiner Corp., 320 U.S. 344 [64 S.Ct. 120, 88 L.Ed. 88]; People v. Craven, 219 Cal. 522 [27 P.2d 906]; Commonwealth v. Yaste, 166 Pa.Super. 275 [70 A.2d 685].) However, while the terms of the instrument apparently call for the payment of two identical sums, just one sum was actually ......
  • Com., by Creamer v. Monumental Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 5, 1974
    ...v. Shaleen, 215 Pa. at 597, 64 A. at 798; Koch's Estate, 5 Rawle 338, 340 (Pa.1835); Commonwealth v. Yaste, 166 Pa.Super., 275, 70 A.2d 685 (1950); Commonwealth v. Hagy, 58 Lancaster L.Rev. 47, 49 (Pa.Q.S. Lancaster County Here, we are concerned with the effect of provisions which are in no......
  • Shepperd v. Boettcher & Co., Inc., 87-132
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 17, 1988
    ...652 F.2d 424 (5th Cir.1981), applying Alabama law; People v. Blankenship, 305 Mich. 79, 8 N.W.2d 919 (1943); and Commonwealth v. Yaste, 166 Pa.Super. 275, 70 A.2d 685 (1950). See likewise, Oil Lease Service, Inc. v. Stephenson, 162 Cal.App.2d 100, 327 P.2d 628 (1958); O'Neill v. State, Fla.......
  • Lenau v. Co-Exprise, Inc., 780 WDA 2013
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 23, 2014
    ...reading of words without regard to their context and the evils which the Act clearly was designed to correct.Commonwealth v. Yaste, 166 Pa.Super. 275, 70 A.2d 685, 687 (1950) ; see also Commonwealth v. Bomersbach, 260 Pa.Super. 28, 393 A.2d 995, 998 (1978) (“[T]he section of the [Pennsylvan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT