State v. Casperson
| Citation | 71 Utah 68,262 P. 294 |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 4584 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
| Parties | STATE v. CASPERSON et al. Appeal of SNYDER |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; L. B Wight, Judge.
John M Snyder was convicted of obtaining a check by false pretenses and he appeals.
REVERSED.
Badger, Rich & Rich, of Salt Lake City, and P. W. Spaulding, of Evanston, Wyoming, for appellant.
Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence A. Miner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, John M. Snyder was tried by a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison, upon a charge of obtaining a check worth $ 1,000 from Freed Finance Corporation by false pretenses. He appeals from the judgment and contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment against him. The controversy arose out of a transaction whereby the accused sold and assigned to the Freed Finance Corporation, for $ 1,000 paid to him therefore, a conditional contract of sale for an automobile to one Levi Waldron, in which contract the title to the automobile was purported to be vested in a corporation of which accused was an officer. The gist of the accusation is that the accused falsely represented ownership of the automobile described in the contract, and thereby unlawfully and fraudulently obtained the money paid therefor. Defendant asserts that, according to the uncontradicted evidence, there was no false pretense, and that the prosecutor was not defrauded, but got a valid, enforceable contract, good in all respects for what it purported to be, and precisely what it bargained for. Upon the essential facts in the case, there is no substantial conflict in the evidence. Casperson & Snyder, of which defendant was manager, was a corporation engaged in selling automobiles at retail at Salt Lake City. Its business was financed by two finance corporations, the Auto Securities Company and the Freed Finance Corporation. Money was furnished to the retail dealer by these finance corporations, from time to time, upon particular automobiles in the retailer's possession or those sold by it to others upon conditional sale contracts.
The form of the transaction in the ordinary case of automobiles in possession and for sale by the retailer was called the "floor plan," and, so far as disclosed by the evidence, consisted of lending money upon automobiles which were to be placed on the retailer's floor for sale purposes. With respect to "demonstrator" cars or salesmen's cars, the form of the transaction was a conditional sale contract between the retailer and its salesman by the terms of which the title to the car was retained by the seller until the purchase price, payable in installments, was paid, which contract was, by the seller, sold at a discount, and indorsed and guaranteed, to the finance company. Notwithstanding a provision in the contract that the vendee should not sell the car, it was the understanding by all three parties that the salesman, or nominal vendee, should have the possession of and sell the car within 90 days, and take up the contract with the finance company. In the case of sales made to purchasers in the ordinary course upon deferred installment payments, conditional sales contracts, by which title was retained by the seller until the purchase price was paid, were taken from the purchasers by the retailer, which contracts were sold, indorsed, and guaranteed by the retailer to the finance company at a discount. The understanding and practice of the finance company and the retailer in this latter case was that if default was made by the purchaser in the payment of any installment, upon any contract, when due, the finance company looked to the retailer which had guaranteed the contract, and permitted it to repossess the car described in the contract, and allowed it 30 days' time in which to sell the car for the purpose of "taking up the contract." The retailer was permitted to make such sales, and the finance company relied and depended on the retailer in such case making payment to it out of the proceeds of such sale. Such was the practice and course of business as between the Auto Securities Company and Casperson & Snyder, involving many automobiles and a large sum of money, and extending over a considerable period of time during and preceding the acts complained of.
The particular transactions relied on by the state to establish the crime charged were as follows:
On March 30, 1926, Casperson & Snyder executed a contract with E. A. Child, a salesman then employed by it at its branch agency at Ogden, Utah, specifying that a certain described automobile was sold conditionally to Child upon his paying the sum of $ 1,552.86 in monthly installments of $ 86.27 each, commencing April 30, 1926. The contract provided that the title to the car described should be retained by the seller until the purchase price was paid in full, and that the vendee should not sell or dispose of the same.
This contract was, by Casperson & Snyder, shortly after its execution, indorsed, guaranteed, and assigned to the Auto Securities Company for the sum of $ 1,300. It satisfactorily appears from the uncontradicted evidence that the Auto Securities Company knew that Child was a salesman of Casperson & Snyder, that the car described was a "demonstrator" or salesman's car, and that under the arrangement Child was authorized and expected to exhibit the car for sale and sell it within 90 days. Two payments were made to the Auto Securities Company on this contract by Casperson & Snyder, one on June 15th, of $ 173.40, and another on July 14th, of $ 87.13.
On June 4, 1926, Casperson & Snyder, through its agents at Ogden, Utah, agreed to sell the same car described in the Child contract to Levi Waldron for a used car, valued at $ 825, and $ 1,114.24 in money. The car was delivered to Waldron upon his delivery of the used car and executing and delivering to Casperson & Snyder a conditional sale contract. With the usual provisions for retention of title by the seller and the promise to pay $ 544.18 on September 4, 1926, and $ 572.06 on December 4, 1926, etc.
Thereupon John M. Snyder, the defendant, presented the Waldron contract to the Freed Finance Corporation, told its officers that his company had sold the car to Waldron, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fisher
... ... Flowers, People v. Pearson, People ... v. Raplee, and Willis v. State, ... supra, cite and follow the rule announced by the majority of ... the court in the Griesheimer Case ... In the ... cases of State v. Howd, 55 Utah 527, 188 P ... 628, 630, and State v. Casperson (Appeal of ... Snyder), 71 Utah 68, 262 P. 294, 296, this court had occasion ... to construe the provision of our law relating to the securing ... of money or property by false pretenses. In the Howd Case ... this court said that: ... "It ... will be seen that under our statute, in ... ...
-
State v. Johnson, 18617
...he parts with his property. If he gets what was pretended and what he bargained for there is no fraud or prejudice. State v. Casperson, 71 Utah 68, 75, 262 P. 294, 296 (1927) (emphasis added). See also State v. Walton, Utah, 646 P.2d 689 (1982); State v. Morris, 85 Utah 210, 38 P.2d 1097 (1......
-
State v. Roberts
...115, 8 P.2d 589 (1932). It is to be noted that no requirement was made that the victim sustain a pecuniary loss. In State v. Casperson, 71 Utah 68, 262 P. 294 (1927), this Court emphasized that a pretense false in fact and an actual fraud resulting in prejudice are the bases of the crime. W......
-
Ballaine v. District Court of First Judicial District for Box Elder County
... ... contentions. The first is that the information upon which ... appellants here, defendants below, stood trial, does not ... state a public offense, and the second, that the facts proved ... were insufficient to constitute the crime of which said ... defendants were convicted ... Howd, 55 Utah ... 527, 188 P. 628, and in more recent decisions has reaffirmed ... its holding in that case. See State v ... Casperson, 71 Utah 68, 262 P. 294; State v ... Morris, 85 Utah 210, 38 P.2d 1097 ... [107 ... Utah 251] In State v. Timmerman, 88 Utah ... 481, ... ...