State v. Rieger
| Decision Date | 16 November 1894 |
| Citation | 59 Minn. 151,60 N.W. 1087 |
| Parties | STATE v. RIEGER. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Section 6, c. 86, Laws 1876, providing that no person holding grain in store shall dispose of or deliver it out of the warehouse in which it is stored, without the express authority of the owner of the grain, and the return of the receipt given therefor, is not repealed by section 415 of the Penal Code.
2. In an indictment under section 6 it is not necessary to allege a tender of the receipt and a demand for the return of the grain.
3. A receipt for grain placed in store, which in all other respects constituted a contract of bailment, contained the following: “The conditions on which this wheat is received at this elevator are that Rieger [the warehouseman] has this option: Either to deliver the grade of wheat that this ticket calls for, or to pay the bearer the market price for the same, less elevator charges, on surrender of this ticket.” Held, that this did not render the contract one of sale. It merely gave the warehouseman an option to buy when the receipt was presented. This option he could only exercise when the receipt was presented, and by paying the money.
Appeal from district court, McLeod county; Francis Cadwell, Judge.
J. H. Rieger was convicted of disposing of certain grain held in store by him, without the express authority of the owner and the return of the warehouse receipt, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A. T. Faber, for appellant.
H. W. Childs, Atty. Gen., Geo. B. Edgerton, and J. V. V. Lewis, for the State.
The defendant was indicted and convicted under Laws 1876, c. 86, §§ 6, 8 (Gen. St. 1878, c. 124, §§ 18, 20), of disposing of certain grain, and delivering it out of the warehouse in which it was held by him in store, without the express authority of the owner and the return of the receipt given for the same.
1. The point is made that these sections of the statute have been repealed by section 415 of the Penal Code, under which alone, if at all, the defendant could be indicted and punished, and that the indictment is insufficient under the Penal Code, because it does not allege that the act was done “with intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property.” We think the point is not well taken. Section 540 of the Penal Code provides that nothing in the Code affects any of the provisions of the statute defining and providing for the punishment of offenses not defined and made punishable by this Code. In view of the manifest object of the statute of 1876, and the evils which it was designed to remedy, we think it very clear that section 6 defines an offense not defined by section 415 of the Penal Code. The latter defines larcenies, and the only effect of it was to do away with the necessity of a trespass, which is an essential element of every larceny at common law, while section 6 of the act of 1876, which was designed to protect those storing grain in warehouses, absolutely forbids the shipping of stored grain out of the warehouse without the express authority of the owner and the return of the receipt for the property. Very clearly, an act might constitute a violation of the law of 1876 which would not constitute larceny as defined by the Penal Code.
2. The receipt given by defendant for this grain was as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards
...... due, not merely to account as agent for the proceeds of sale. There is an enlightening discussion of option contracts of. this general character in Brown on Personal Property (1936),. section 78, pages 259-263. [See also: State v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 151, 60 N.W. 1087; Barnes v. Patrick, 176 Wash. 142, 28 P.2d 293, 91 A. L. R. 901,. note; 54 A. L. R. p. 1166, note.] Applying the logical rule. there advocated to the facts of this case, the contract was a. bailment until Moulder exercised his option of designating. the market price ......
-
State v. Edwards, 36514.
......There is an enlightening discussion of option contracts of this general character in Brown on Personal Property (1936), section 78, pages 259-263. [See also: State v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 151, 60 N.W. 1087; Barnes v. Patrick, 176 Wash. 142, 28 Pac. (2d) 293, 91 A.L.R. 901, note; 54 A.L.R. p. 1166, note.] Applying the logical rule there advocated to the facts of this case, the contract was a bailment until Moulder exercised his option of designating the market price — if ......
-
State v. Barry
...5 Dill. 509; Chase v. Washburn, 1 Oh. St. 244; South Australian v. Randell, 3 Priv. C. 101; Lonergan v. Stewart, 55 Ill. 44; State v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 151; 22 L.J. 358; Murray v. Pillsbury, 59 Minn. 85; Weiland v. Sunwall, 63 Minn. 320; Smith v. Clark, 21 Wend. 83; Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill, ......
-
Savage v. Salem Mills Co.
...Bank v. Langan, 28 Ill.App. 401; McGrew v. Thayer, 24 Ind.App. 578, 57 N.E. 262; State v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 154, 60 N.W. 1087. State v. Rieger, supra, was under a special and the other cases cited were those of warehousemen who did not have the right to use the grain stored with them as a pa......