State v. Summerland
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Six indictments were returned against defendant by the grand jury of Douglas county charging Mm with the offense of selling and offering for sale securities without a license. Defendant’s demurrers to the indictments were overruled and his motions to quash the indictments denied, Bioeser, J., and tbe case certified to the supreme court.
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
Six indictments were returned against the defendant, charging him with violations of the so-called Blue Sky Law, chapter 429, p. 635, Laws 1917, as .amended by chapter 105, p. 99, Laws 1919. Three of these indictments alleged that, without having the license required by the statute, defendant sold securities as a dealer, and three that, without such license, he made sales as the agent of the issuer of the securities. On being arraigned, defendant moved that each indictment be set aside for the reason that in all of them he was charged with the same offense. The motion was denied and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Gray v. First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific R. R.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- Dutton v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1854
- State v. ArtzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- State v. NordstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- State v. KiewelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- State v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- State v. GinsbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.