State v. Billings

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Billings

104 N.W. 1150, 96 Minn. 533, 1905 Minn. LEXIS 592

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 10, 1905

DocketNos. 14,262—(5)

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 104 N.W. 1150 (State v. Billings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Billings, 104 N.W. 1150, 96 Minn. 533, 1905 Minn. LEXIS 592 (Mich. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was indicted for embezzlement under the provisions of section 6709, G. S. 1894, a jury was impaneled, and after the case had proceeded to trial the county attorney made the statement to the court that he was unable to prove that the corporation alleged in the indictment was a corporation de jure, and offered evidence to prove that it was a corporation de facto. Objection was made and overruled, whereupon the court certified that question, with several others, to this court for answer.

In State v. Byrud, 23 Minn. 29, it was held that to confer jurisdiction of a case certified to this court it should afiirmatively appear that the question of law certified arose in one of the two ways mentioned in the statute, viz.: When a person shall have been convicted, or when the question arises on demurrer, a special plea, or upon or relating to any motion to an indictment. In other words, it was held that the court had no power to certify any questions arising in the midst of a trial. It must be either in the course of preliminary proceedings or upon conviction. In State v. Loomis, 27 Minn. 521, 8 N. W. 758, the reasons for the statute are stated: To enable a trial court, with the consent of defendant, before the trial of any issue upon the indictment, to procure for his guidance in subsequent proceedings a decision of any doubtful question, to save expense.

The proceeding is dismissed upon the ground that the -court has no jurisdiction in the premises.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was indicted for embezzlement under the provisions of section 6709, G. S. 1894, a jury was impaneled, and after the case had proceeded to trial the county attorney made the statement to the court that he was unable to prove that the corporation alleged in the indictment was a corporation de jure, and offered evidence to prove that it was a corporation de facto. Objection was made and overruled, whereupon the court certified that question, with several others, to this court for answer.

In State v. Byrud, 23 Minn. 29, it was held that to confer jurisdiction of a case certified to this court it should afiirmatively appear that the question of law certified arose in one of the two ways mentioned in the statute, viz.: When a person shall have been convicted, or when the question arises on demurrer, a special plea, or upon or relating to any motion to an indictment. In other words, it was held that the court had no power to certify any questions arising in the midst of a trial. It must be either in the course of preliminary proceedings or upon conviction. In State v. Loomis, 27 Minn. 521, 8 N. W. 758, the reasons for the statute are stated: To enable a trial court, with the consent of defendant, before the trial of any issue upon the indictment, to procure for his guidance in subsequent proceedings a decision of any doubtful question, to save expense.

The proceeding is dismissed upon the ground that the -court has no jurisdiction in the premises.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.W. 1150, 96 Minn. 533, 1905 Minn. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-billings-minn-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack