State v. BarnesState v. Barnes
Appellant was indicted as follows:
“Jоseph IT. Barnes is accused by the grand jury of the county óf Hennepin, in the state of Minnesota, by this ' indictment, of the crime of grand larceny in thе first degree, committed as follows:
“The said Joseph.H. Barnes on the second day of January, A. D. 1907, at the city of Minneapolis, in said Hennepin county, then and there being the president and a director of the Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Company, then and there a corporation duly organized, created, and existing under and by virtue of chapter 107, Laws of Minnesota 1883, and laws amendatory thereto, did unlаwfully, knowingly, and feloniously become indebted to said Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Company, in the sum of two thousand six hundred and fourteen dollars аnd ninety-six cents, by then and there appropriating to his own use and charging to' his personal account two thousand six hundred and fourteen dollars and ninety-six cents, genuine, lawful, and current money of the Hnited States of America.
The indictment was demurred to upon the ground that the facts therein stated did not constitute a public offense. The trial court ovеrruled the demurrer, and certified the case to this court for decision of certain questions.
The indictment is attacked upon the ground that, so far as appears from its face, the company may have been incorporated under the provisions of section 9, c. 107, p. 135, Laws 1883, as amended by section 5, c. 3, p. 17, Laws 1885, to transact a title insurance business only, and that it does not appeаr from the face of the indictment for what purpose the company was organized. It is conceded by the state that the indictmеnt was drawn with reference to section 3045 of the Revised Laws of 1905.
Chapter 107, p. 133, Laws 1883, is entitled: “An act to authorize the organization аnd' incorporation of annuity, safe deposit and trust companies.”' Section 11 thereof prohibits the corporation from еngaging in any other kind of business, except as expressly authorized by the act, and makes the loan of any money of the corporation to an officer or director an act of embezzlement by such officer. This section Is practically the same as sеction 3045 of the Revised Laws of 1905. Corporations organized under the act of 1883 were not authorized to engage in the title insurancе business, but by chapter 3, p. 14, Laws 1885, such companies were expressly authorized to insure owners of real estate, mortgages, and other interests in real estate from loss by reason of defective titles, liens, and incumbrances. By chapter 74, p. 123, Laws 1887, this provision of thе 1885 act was expressly repealed, with this reservation: “But this repeal shall not affect or be construed as referring to •any company which has been heretofore organized under said act
It does not appear definitely from the indictment at what time the company in question was incorporated, but it was assumed at the argument that it was after chapter 3, p. 14, of the Laws of 1885, was enacted and before the repeal of that act by сhapter 74, p. 123, Laws of 1887. It is possible that, although the company was incorporated as an annuity, safe deposit, and trust comрany, it may, in the course of time, have become practically a title insurance company, under the additional powers granted by the 1885 act. It may be tliat in 1907 the company was transacting both branches of business, and that the money involved in the transaction nаmed in the indictment was title insurance funds. These suggestions present some very interesting questions, which we do not deem it proper to consider at this time.
It fairly appears from the indictment that the corporation was a trust company within the provisions of section 3045, and in January, 1907, was doing a trust business, and that the funds referred to in the indictment were trust funds. Chapter 107, p. 133, Laws 1883, and chapter 3, p. 14, Laws 1885, were expressly rеpealed by the 1905 Code; but the provisions of section 11 of the 1883 act were incorporated into the Code as section 3045. Thе sections are practically the same,, and the new provision must be held to be a continuation of the old one, under the provisions of section 5508 of the Code. Becklin v. Becklin,
But it is claimed that chapter 107, p. 133, Laws 1883, was unconstitutional, because the title rеlated solely to the organization and incorporation of trust companies, and not to the method and manner of conducting the business-as set out in the body of the act. If unconstitutional, appellant argues that the continuation of the law in the code wаs also void. If the act of 1883 was unconstitutional because of the restrictive title, it would avail appellant nothing, because the same provisions were re-enacted in the code, and that was
But we are unwilling to conсede that the title to the 1883 act was defective, and we hold that the act was constitutional. The subject of the act is expressed in the title. No one reading the title would have ’the right to assume that the body of the act did not define the purposes and duties of such companies, and the objects and purposes of an act need not be stated in the title. Lien v. Board of County Commrs. of Normаn Co.,
Eor these reasons, the indictment states facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, under section 3045, E. L. 1905, and the order overruling the demurrer is affirmed.