Court Opinion

ID: 9661223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:32:55.131029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:26.510735
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in Division II and the result.
We have long held that a false representation of fact may occur through conduct which misrepresents ability to pay for purchased goods. State v. Foxton, 166 Iowa 181, 147 N.W.2d 347 (1914). Here the State’s particulars charge the defendants with purchasing cattle under a “business as usual” facade while secretly diverting funds to preferred creditors, planning bankruptcy and concealing ABP’s insolvency. Although the trial court did not think so, I believe these circumstances show a false representation by implication.
This case comes well within the principle that a false promise may be coupled with a false representation of fact to constitute a false pretense. Pioneer Valley Savings Bank v. Indemnity Insurance Co., 225 F.Supp. 404 (N.D.Iowa 1964); State v. Dowe, 27 Iowa 273 (1869); State v. Montgomery, 56 Iowa 195, 9 N.W. 120 (1881); State v. Fooks, 65 Iowa 196, 21 N.W. 561 (1884); State v. Tripp, 113 Iowa 698, 84 N.W. 546 (1900); State v. Hollingsworth, 132 Iowa 471, 109 N.W. 1003 (1906); State v. Comes, 245 Iowa 485, 62 N.W.2d 753 (1954).