Legal Opinion

State v. Ostensoe

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 3, 1930No. 28,019PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

Defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial. He was convicted of compounding a crime, to wit, a felony. See G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) §§ 10654 and 10034.

Clarence Groven and Roy Groven, young men, stole 14 chickens from Mrs. Nevins by taking them from a building. They admitted their guilt. The crime was grand larceny in the second degree.

Defendant, a lawyer, acted for Mrs. Nevins. After the young men acknowledged their guilt defendant saw their father and said, “Tell the boys, $250 apiece.” The father resorted to a mortgage and raised $500. He gave it to defendant, who…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  2. State v. QuinlanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  3. State v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
  4. State v. EkbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. CantrellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
  2. State v. SimonsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  3. In Re Disbarment of Thor B. OstensoeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API