Register | Lost your password?

CaseBriefs

State v. Miller

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.192 Or. 188, 233 P.2d 786 (1951)

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant induced the complaining witness to agree to guarantee his indebtedness to another on a false representation of ownership. Defendant was convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses. The issue revolves around whether or not, under the statutory scheme, this constitutes an allegation a criminal act.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A creditor who orally guarantees to pay the debt of another does not pass title to the debtor.


Facts. Defendant Miller induced the Hub Lumber Company to agree to pay his debt to the Howard Cooper Corporation if he should fail to pay it. Miller told Hub that he owned a tractor free of encumbrance, but he was actually purchasing the tractor under a conditional sales contract. Defendant executed a chattel mortgage to the tractor as security. Thereafter, Defendant was convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses. The issue before the Court is whether the facts presented show that Defendant obtained “any property” within the meaning of the statute upon receiving an oral guarantee to have his debt paid.

Issue. Did the Defendant obtain any property from the Hub Lumber Company when he induced them to agree to pay his indebtedness to the Howard Cooper Corporation if he failed to pay it?

Content Type: Brief


Comments are closed.