## Facts

- Miller sought to acquire a tractor from Howard Cooper Corporation under a conditional sales arrangement and was not the unconditional owner.
- Miller represented to Hub Lumber Company that he owned the tractor free of encumbrances.
- Relying on that representation, Hub orally agreed to guarantee Miller’s debt to Howard Cooper if Miller defaulted.
- Miller executed a chattel mortgage on the tractor to Hub as security for Hub’s guarantee.
- The prosecution alleged Miller obtained “property” by false pretenses, identifying the “benefit of the guarantee” (i.e., credit support) as the property obtained.

## Issues

1. Whether inducing an oral third-party guarantee of the defendant’s debt, through false representations, constitutes obtaining “money or property” by false pretenses under the governing Oregon statute.
2. Whether the “benefit” of an oral guarantee (or credit support) qualifies as “property” within the statute.
3. Whether an indictment that treats such an intangible guarantee benefit as the property obtained states a criminal offense.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the conviction and directed dismissal.
- The court held that the intangible benefit of an oral guarantee was not “money or property” within the statute.
- Because the alleged “thing obtained” did not satisfy the statutory element, the indictment failed to charge a crime.

## Legal Principles

- Penal statutes are strictly construed; courts may not extend criminal liability beyond the statute’s clear terms.
- For false pretenses, the prosecution must allege and prove the defendant obtained “money or property” as defined by the statute, not merely an economic advantage.
- “Property,” as used in the statute, requires a possessable interest with transferable title; a purely intangible, oral guarantee benefit does not meet that requirement.
- A statutory clause deeming certain non-owner security instruments to be a “false pretense” does not eliminate the independent requirement that the defendant obtain “money or property.”
- When an indictment’s theory of the “property” element falls outside the statute, the proper remedy is reversal with dismissal rather than a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that fraudulent inducement of an oral debt guarantee did not amount to obtaining “money or property” under the false pretenses statute, so the conviction could not stand and the case was dismissed for failure to charge a statutory offense.


State v. Miller, 188 Or. 188, 233 P.2d 786 (Or. 1951)