Commonwealth v. Novick
| Decision Date | 01 March 1924 |
| Citation | 248 Mass. 317,142 N.E. 771 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. NOVICK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; W. Thayer, Judge.
Max Novick was convicted of stealing money from a voluntary association, and brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Chas. H. Wright, Dist. Atty., of Pittsfield, and Chas. R. Clason, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Springfield, for the Commonwealth.
Harry M. Ehrlich, Isadore H. Hurowitz, and Joseph Swirsky, all of Springfield, for defendant.
The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him with stealing $2,900 from ‘the Woronoco Mutual Benefit Association, a voluntary association.’ This society was organized mainly for the purpose of enabling its members to obtain loans from money raised by selling its capital shares. Many of the provisions of the agreement of association were not in fact carried out, such as the issuing of certificates of shares; but loans aggregating several thousand dollars were made, each secured by the promissory note of the borrower endorsed by another member. The agreement refers to the subscribers both as partners and as stockholders. The defendant was a member and treasurer from 1918 until November 29, 1921. There was evidence tending to show that he ‘appropriated and converted to his own use, without right and without any authority or consent of the directors, or any other officers beside himself, funds belonging to the organization * * * and used them in his own business.’ The only defense raised by his exceptions is that the agreement created a copartnership, and that as matter of law he could not be held guilty of larceny for converting the partnership assets to his own use.
At common law it was ordinarily held that a general partner could not be convicted of larceny or embezzlement for appropriating to his own use money which came into his possession by virtue of his being such partner and joint owner, because it was not ‘the property of another.’ 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 822, note, and cases cited; Gary v. Northwestern Mutual Aid Association, 87 Iowa, 25, 53 N. W. 1086;State v. Butman, 61 N. H. 511, 60 Am. Rep. 332. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 118 Mass. 443. As to the unauthorized conversion of the funds of benevolent and fraternal organizations by their fiscal or managing agents, see 14 Ann. Cas. 725, note. State v. Kusnick, 45 Ohio St. 535, 15 N. E. 481,4 Am. St. Rep. 564;People v. Mahlman, 82 Cal. 585, 23...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation v. Chilton Club
...102 Mass. 144;Commonwealth v. Baker, 152 Mass. 337, 25 N.E. 718;Commonwealth v. Woelz, 219 Mass. 37, 106 N.E. 560;Commonwealth v. Novick, 248 Mass. 317, 142 N.E. 771;Newton Centre Woman's Club, Inc., v. Newton, 258 Mass. 326, 154 N.E. 846; Workmen's Circle Educational Center of Springfield,......
-
Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation v. Chilton Club
...58. Commonwealth v. Smith, 102 Mass. 144 . Commonwealth v. Baker, 152 Mass. 337 . Commonwealth v. Woelz, 219 Mass. 37 . Commonwealth v. Novick, 248 Mass. 317 . Centre Woman's Club, Inc. v. Newton, 258 Mass. 326. Workmen's Circle Educational Center of Springfield, Inc. v. Assessors of Spring......
-
Commonwealth v. Bovaird
...it is a matter of record that at all times the books of the cotenancy disclosed the indebtedness of this defendant. In Commonwealth v. Novick, 248 Mass. 317, 142 N.E. 771, the Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. ‘ At common law it was ordinarily held that a general partner could not be convicte......
-
United States v. Currier Lumber Co.
...substantially his own property. Mass.G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 266, § 30; c. 277, § 39; Com. v. Bennett, 118 Mass. 443, 453. See Com. v. Novick, 248 Mass. 317, 318, 142 N.E. 771. In short, Currier took the checks under a "claim of right" (327 U.S. 408, 66 S.Ct. 549) as the only person beneficially i......