Minnesota Supreme Court, 1907

State v. Schoemperlena

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 12, 1907 · Jaggard

101 Minn. 8; 111 N.W. 577; 1907 Minn. LEXIS 501 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Edward T. Young, Attorney General, George T. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, and N. J. Robinson, County Attorney, for the State. ', Patterson & Hall, for defendant.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1923, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. McCullough (Minn. 1923)
State v. Marx (Minn. 1918)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JAGGARD, J.

The indictment charged that the defendant at a time and place mentioned, having in his possession, custody, and control as bailee of named persons, certain described personal property of specified value, the property of named persons, converted and appropriated the same to his own use. On trial defendant objected to the introduction of any testimony on behalf of the state on the ground that the indictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, in that it did not state the purpose or use for which the property was intrusted to the defendant. The objection was overruled, and exception taken. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The court sentenced the prisoner, and afterwards certified the case to this court.

It was distinctly held in State v. Holton, 88 Minn. 171, 92 N. W. 541, that “in an indictment for larceny by a bailee it is not necessary to allege mere evidentiary facts, but it is necessary to allege the name *9of the bailor, and in concise terms the purpose or use for which the property was intrusted to the defendant, for this is an essential ultimate fact which must be proven in order to sustain the indictment." It is true that a contrary conclusion was reached in State v. Barry, 77 Minn. 128, 79 N. W. 656. State v. Holton overruled that case, and determined the law on this point in this state. It follows that the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion for arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment failed to charge a public offense.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.