§ 537. Receipt by virtue of employment. § 538. Estoppel. VI. THE CONVERSION OR EMBEZZLEMENT § 539. Necessity for conversion. § 540. What constitutes conversion or embezzlement-In general. § 511. Definition and nature. Embezzlement is a statutory and not a common-law offense,1 and of course the statutes defining it and providing for its punishment vary in the different jurisdictions. It 1 Alabama. Knight v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585. Arizona. Storm v. Territory, 12 Ariz. 26, 94 Pac. 1099. California. People v. Gallagher, 100 Cal. 466, 35 Pac. 80. Connecticut. State v. Lanyon, 83 Conn. 449, 76 Atl. 1095. Delaware. Foster v. State, 2 Pennew. 111, 43 Atl. 265, aff'g 1 Pennew. 289, 40 Atl. 939. District of Columbia. Ambrose v. United States, 45 App. Cas. 112. Indiana. Laycock v. State, 136 Ind. 217, 36 N. E. 137. Iowa. State v. Finnegan, 127 Iowa 286, 103 N. W. 155, 4 Ann. Cas. 628. Louisiana. State v. Pellerin, 118 La. 547, 43 So. 159; State v. Wolff, 34 La. Ann. 1153. Maine. State v. Cates, 99 Me. 68, 58 Atl. 238. Maryland. Williams V. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 105 Md. 490, 66 Atl. 495. Missouri. State v. Britt, 278 Mo. 510, 213 S. W. 425; State v. Burgess, 268 Mo. 407, 188 S. W. 135. North Carolina. State V. McDonald, 133 N. C. 680, 45 S. E. 582; State v. Keith, 126 N. C. 1114, 36 S. E. 169. Ohio. State v. Baxter, 89 Ohio St. 269, 104 N. E. 331, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 60. Oregon. State v. Browning, 47 Ore. 470, 82 Pac. 955. West Virginia. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. may be said generally to be the fraudulent and felonious appropriation of another's property by a person to whom it has been intrusted or into whose hands it has lawfully come. It is an offense against prop 2 United States. Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, 47 L. Ed. 130, 23 Sup. Ct. 98; Moore v. United States, 160 U. S. 268, 40 L. Ed. 422, 16 Sup. Ct. 294; United States v. Davenport, 266 Fed. 425; Tredwell v. United States, 266 Fed. 350, certiorari denied 253 U. S. 1031, 64 L. Ed. 1031, 40 Sup. Ct. 587; Schell v. United States, 261 Fed. 593. Alabama. Knight v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585. California. People v. McMahan, 133 Cal. 278, 65 Pac. 571; People v. Gallagher, 100 Cal. 466, 35 Pac. 80; People v. Bojorquez, 35 Cal. App. 350, 169 Pac. 922; People v. Dye, 29 Cal. App. 169, 154 Pac. 875. Delaware. State v. Curtin, 5 Boyce (28 Del.) 518, 95 Atl. 232. Georgia. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Sexton, 134 Ga. 56, 67 S. E. 649. Idaho. State v. Jones, 25 Idaho 587, 138 Pac. 1116. Indiana. State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306; State v. Winstandley, 155 Ind. 290, 58 N. E. 71. Kansas. State v. Yeiter, 54 Kan. 277, 38 Pac. 320. Kentucky. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Miller, 114 Ky. 754, 71 S. W. 921. Louisiana, Union Nat. Bank V. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 143 La. 329, 78 So. 582; State v. Dudenhefer, 122 La. 288, 47 So. 614; State v. Pellerin, 118 La. 547, 43 So. 159. Maryland. Baugh v. Moore, 122 Md. 149, 89 Atl. 404, 939; Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 105 Md. 490, 66 Atl. 495. Missouri State v. Burgess, 268 Mo. 407, 188 S. W. 135; State v. McWil liams, 267 Mo. 437, 184 S. W. 96; Hanna v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 241 Mo. 383, 145 S. W. 412; State v. Casey, 207 Mo. 1, 105 S. W. 645, 123 Am. St. Rep. 367, 13 Ann. Cas. 878. Nebraska. McAleer v. State, 46 Neb. 116, 64 N. W. 358; Chaplin v. Lee, 18 Neb. 440, 25 N. W. 609. New York. Spiegel v. Levine, 161 App. Div. 764, 147 N. Y. Supp. 78; Quail v. Nelson, 39 App. Div. 18, 56 N. Y. Supp. 865. North Dakota. State v. Bickford, 28 N. D. 36, 147 N. W. 407, Ann. Cas. 1916 D 140; State v. Collins, 4 N. D. 433, 61 N. W. 467. Ohio. State v. Baxter, 89 Ohio St. 269, 104 N. E. 331, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 60. Oklahoma. Rogers v. State, 14 Okla Cr. 235, 170 Pac. 269, L. R. A. 1918 E 742; Bivens v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 521, 120 Pac. 1033. Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, A. & M. Passenger R. Co. v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. St. 554, 8 Atl. 230, 60 Am. Rep. 363. Texas. Hamer v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 341, 131 S. W. 813; Leonard v. State, 7 Tex. App. 417. Utah. People v. Hill, 3 Utah 334, 3 Pac. 75. Wyoming. McCann V. United States, 2 Wyo. 274. "The fraudulent conversion of another's personal property by one to whom it has been intrusted, with the intention of depriving the owner thereof." Ambrose v. United States, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 112. erty and property rights, and the gist of the offense is breach of trust.1 The purpose of the statutes creating the offense is primarily to reach and punish the fraudulent conversion of property which could not be punished as larceny because of the absence of a trespass. But of course the legislature may provide for the punishment as embezzlement of acts which would be larceny at common law, or under former statutes." § 512. Distinguished from other offenses. The distinction between larceny and embezzlement is that to constitute larceny there must have been a trespass in the original taking, accompanied by a felonious intent, while in embezzlement the possession is acquired lawfully or with the owner's consent, and the property is then wrongfully converted pursuant to a subsequently formed intent. In some states the definition of larceny has been extended by statute so as to in The crime, as generally defined by the statutes, consists essentially of the fraudulent conversion or misappropriation of property received in a fiduciary capacity. State v. Carmean, 126 Iowa 291, 102 N. W. 97, 106 Am. St. Rep. 352. It consists in the breach of some trust relation by one in the lawful possession of the personal property of another who fraudulently converts it to his own use. 99 State v. Browning, 47 Ore. 470, 82 Pac. 955. For various other definitions, see State v. Trolson, 21 Nev. 419, 32 Pac. 930. 3 State v. Mispagel, 207 Mo. 557, 106 S. W. 513. 4 People v. Dye, 29 Cal. App. 169, 154 Pac. 875; State v. Johnson, 21 Tex. 775. And see § 531, infra. 5 California. People v. Gallagher, 100 Cal. 466, 35 Pac. 80. District of Columbia, Ambrose v. United States, 45 App. Cas. 112. Illinois. Kibs v. People, 81 Ill. 599. Indiana. Colip v. State, 153 Ind. 584, 55 N. E. 739, 74 Am. St. Rep. 322; Laycock v. State, 136 Ind. 217, 36 N. E. 137. North Carolina. State v. McDon- West Virginia. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. England. Reg. Gorbutt, Dears. & B. 166; Rex v. Sullens, 1 Moody C. C. 129; Rex v. Headge, Russ. & R. 160 6 State v. Taberner, 14 R. I. 272, 51 Am. Rep. 382. And see § 512, infra. State, 157 Ind. 577, 7 Wynegar v. 62 N. E. 38. 8 United States. Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, 47 L. Ed. 130, 23 Sup. Ct. 98; Moore v. United States, 160 U. S. 268, 40 L. Ed. 422, 16 Sup. Ct. 294; Tredwell v. United States, 266 Fed. 350, certiorari denied 253 U. S. 496, 64 L. Ed. 1031, 40 Sup. Ct. 587; United clude embezzlement, or, in other words, the statute makes embezzlement a species of larceny. It is sometimes called larceny after States v. United States Brokerage & Trading Co., 262 Fed. 459; Schell v. United States, 261 Fed. 593. Alabama. Weldon v. State, 17 Ala. App. 68, 81 So. 846. California. People v. Sing, Cal. App. 183 Pac. 865; People v. Bojorquez, 35 Cal. App. 350, 169 Pac. 922; People v. Dye, 29 Cal. App. 169, 154 Pac. 875. Colorado. Moody v. People, 65 Colo. 339, 176 Pac. 476. Connecticut. State v. Lanyon, 83 Conn. 449, 76 Atl. 1095. Delaware. State v. Curtin, 5 Boyce (28 Del.) 518, 95 Atl. 232; Foster v. State, 2 Pennew. 111, 43 Atl. 265, aff'g 1 Pennew. 289, 40 Atl. 939. District of Columbia. Ambrose v. United States, 45 App. Cas. 112; Rohde v. United States, 34 App. Cas. 249. Florida. Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 So. 778. Georgia. Carter v. State, 143 Ga. 632, 85 S. E. 884; Smith v. State, 7 Ga. App. 468, 67 S. E. 202. Illinois. People v. Ehle, 273 Ill. 424, 112 N. E. 970; Spalding v. People, 172 Ill. 40, 49 N. E. 993. Indiana. Axtell v. State, 173 Ind. 711, 91 N. E. 354. Iowa. State v. Finnegan, 127 Iowa 286, 103 N. W. 155, 4 Ann. Cas. 628. Kansas. State v. Yeiter, 54 Kan. 277, 38 Pac. 320. Maryland. Williams V. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 105 Md. 490, 66 Atl. 495. Massachusetts. Com. v. Barry, 124 Mass. 325. Minnesota. State v. Kortgaard, 62 Minn. 7, 64 N. W. 51. Missouri. State v. Casey, 207 Mo. 1, 105 S. W. 645, 123 Am. St. Rep. 367, 13 Ann. Cas. 878. New York. People v. Miller, 169 N. Y. 339, 62 N. E. 418, 88 Am. St. Rep. 546; Spiegel v. Levine, 161 App. Div. 764, 147 N. Y. Supp. 78. North Carolina. State v. McDonald, 133 N. C. 680, 45 S. E. 582. Oklahoma. Flohr v. Territory, 14 Okla. 477, 78 Pac. 565; Ennis v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 675, 167 Pac. 229, L. R. A. 1918 A 312; Bivens v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 521, 120 Pac. 1033. Oregon. State v. Browning, 47 Ore. 470, 82 Pac. 955. West Virginia. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. McCann V. United Wyoming. If possession is obtained against the will of the owner, the offense is larceny and not embezzlement. People v. Gordon, 133 Cal. 328, 65 Pac. 746, 85 Am. St. Rep. 174. See also §§ 547-551, infra. 9 See the statutes of the various states and the following cases: Colorado. Moody v. People, 65 Colo. 339, 176 Pac. 476. Kansas. State v. Chaplain, 101 Kan. 413, 166 Pac. 238. Maine. State v. Cates, 99 Me. 68, 58 Atl. 238. Massachusetts. Com. v. Peakes, 231 Mass. 449, 121 N. E. 420; Com. v. King, 202 Mass. 379, 88 N. E. 454; Com. v. Parker, 165 Mass. 526, 43 N. E. 499. Minnesota. State v. Comings, 54 Minn. 359, 56 N. W. 50; State v. Friend, 47 Minn. 449, 50 N. W. 692. Missouri. State v. Burgess, 268 Mo. 407, 188 S. W. 135. trust 10 or larceny by bailee. But in some states larceny by bailee and embezzlement are distinct offenses.12 Some of the statutes punishing embezzlement 18 or larceny after trust 14 are broad enough to include acts which would also amount to larceny, in which case a conviction may be had for either offense. II. THE SUBJECT OF EMBEZZLEMENT § 513. In general. A thing to be the subject of embezzlement, must come within the terms of the statute defining the offense.15 Some statutes make anything that is the subject of larceny the subject of embezzlement, and this makes things that are made the subject of larceny by statute the subject of embezzlement also.16 Other statutes use particular terms in specifying what shall be the subject Montana. State v. Brown, 38 Mont. 309, 99 Pac. 954. New York. People v. Scharf, 217 N. Y. 204, 111 N. E. 758, rev'g 168 App. Div. 494, 153 N. Y. Supp. 1045; People v. Miller, 169 N. Y. 339, 62 N. E. 418, 88 Am. St. Rep. 546; People v. Brenneauer, 101 Misc. 156, 166 N. Y. Supp. 801. Oregon. State v. Browning, 47 Ore. 470, 82 Pac. 955. Virginia. Pitsnogle v. Com., 91 Va. 808, 22 S. E. 351, 50 Am. St. Rep. 867. West Virginia. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. 10 Smith v. State, 121 Ga. 618, 49 S. E. 677; Kelley v. State, 24 Ga. App. 155, 100 S. E. 23; Sewell v. State, 23 Ga. App. 765, 99 S. E. 320; Smith v. State, 7 Ga. App. 468, 67 S. E. 202. 11 People v. Perini, 94 Cal. 573, 29 Pac. 1027; Com. v. Wilson, 62 Pa. Super. Ct. 618; Burns v. State, 145 Wis. 373, 128 N. W. 987, 140 Am. St Rep. 1081. 12 Tashima v. People, 58 Colo. 98, 144 Pac. 200. As to the distinction under the Texas statute, see § 527, infra. 13 See §§ 521, 522, infra. 14 Martin v. State, 123 Ga. 478, 51 S. E. 334; Kelley v. State, 24 Ga. App. 155, 100 S. E. 23; Bryant v. State, 8 Ga. App. 389, 69 S. E. 121. 15 State v. Wilcox, Mo. S. W. 482. 179 A deed is not within a statute punishing embezzlement of money, coin, bills, notes, credits, choses in action, or other property or article of value." The doctrine of ejusdem generis applies. Mendenhall v. State, 189 Ind. 175, 126 N. E. 434. 16 Colorado. Moody v. People, 65 Colo. 339, 176 Pac. 476. Delaware. State v. Greco, 6 Boyce (29 Del.) 591, 102 Atl. 62; State v. Seeney, 5 Pennew. (21 Del.) 142, 59 Atl. 48. Iowa. State v. Stoller, 38 Iowa 321. Kentucky. Com. v. Hicks, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 619 (Abst.). Maine. State v. Whitehouse, 95 Me. 179, 49 Atl. 869. Wisconsin. State v. White, 66 Wis. 343, 28 N. W. 202. |