## Facts

- C. E. Miller was acquiring a TD-14 International tractor under a conditional sales contract and therefore did not own the tractor free and clear.
- Miller owed $1,207.07 to the Howard Cooper Corporation in connection with the tractor.
- Miller approached Selmar Hutchins, an agent of Hub Lumber Company, seeking financial assistance related to that debt.
- Miller represented that he was the sole and exclusive owner of the tractor, free of all liens and encumbrances.
- Miller executed a promissory note to Hub Lumber Company for $1,207.07 and gave Hutchins a chattel mortgage on the tractor as security, representing the mortgage was valid security.
- Relying on Miller’s statements and the mortgage, Hub Lumber Company agreed to guarantee Miller’s debt to Howard Cooper Corporation.
- The guarantee alleged in the indictment was oral; no written guarantee or signed guaranty instrument was alleged to have been obtained.
- Miller was indicted under Oregon’s false-pretenses statute (O.C.L.A. § 23-530), convicted by a jury of obtaining property by false pretenses, and appealed on the ground that the indictment did not charge a crime.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment charges “obtaining … money or property” under O.C.L.A. § 23-530 when it alleges the defendant obtained only the benefit of an oral guarantee of his preexisting debt to a third party.
2. Whether the statute’s clause deeming certain nonowner chattel mortgages to be “false pretenses” removes the need for the State to allege that the defendant obtained money or property.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the conviction and dismissed the criminal action.
- The court held the indictment was legally insufficient because it alleged Miller obtained only the benefit of an oral guarantee, which is not “property” within the meaning of O.C.L.A. § 23-530.
- The court held that the “false mortgage” clause may define conduct that constitutes a false pretense, but it does not dispense with the separate requirement that the defendant obtain money or property by means of that false pretense.
- The court noted that a different question would be presented if the indictment alleged Miller obtained a signature to a written guarantee or comparable written instrument.

## Legal Principles

- In a prosecution for obtaining property by false pretenses under O.C.L.A. § 23-530, “property” is limited to something capable of possession and to which title can pass or be transferred.
- A mere oral promise of guaranty or an intangible credit benefit, without a written instrument obtained by the defendant, is not “property” under the statute.
- A statutory provision declaring that making a nonowner mortgage is “deemed a false pretense” addresses the type of fraudulent representation; it does not expand the statute to cover cases where the thing obtained is not money or property.
- Penal statutes are strictly construed; courts may not extend criminal liability to conduct not clearly within the statute’s terms, even if the conduct is wrongful.

## Conclusion

Because the indictment alleged that Miller obtained only the benefit of Hub Lumber Company’s oral guarantee of his debt to a third party—rather than money, tangible goods, or a written instrument capable of possession and transfer of title—it did not allege the obtaining of “property” required by Oregon’s false-pretenses statute, so the conviction was reversed and the case dismissed.


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