Hutchinson v. Bank of Wheeling
| Decision Date | 25 November 1861 |
| Citation | 41 Pa. 42 |
| Parties | Hutchinson <I>versus</I> Merchants' and Mechanics' Bank of Wheeling. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
2. The civil remedy for money stolen is merged in the felony: Tatlock v. Harris, 1 H. Bl. 569; Gibson v. Minet, Styles 346. As part of the sentence on conviction is to restore the property stolen, there is no other remedy against the felon: Howard v. Smith, 2 Durnf. & East 750.
3. The statute of limitations is a bar: Selwyn's N. P. 1382. The court was wrong in holding that the civil remedy was suspended until after the trial for larceny: Boardman v. Govet et al., 15 Mass. 338.
4. The comment on the testimony of Nixon and Beeson was erroneous. The fact of loaning Beeson money was no evidence of guilt; and as Nixon could have known this without any communication with Hutchinson, it proved nothing, and did not corroborate him. It was error in the court to say what the effect of Beeson's testimony should be.
D. Kaine, for defendants in error.
The opinion of the court was delivered, November 25th 1861, by LOWRIE, C. J.
Trover, being the proper remedy for the wrongful conversion or appropriation of the property of another, undoubtedly includes appropriations by theft, as well as by fraud and trespass, unless there is some special rule of public policy that excludes them. There is none such; but it has often been held, for the sake of public justice, that the private action of trover is suspended until the public prosecution for the offence has been duly conducted and ended: Lofft 88, 601; 15 Q. B. 566; 2 Ad. & E. 495; 2 Car. & P. 41; 9 B. & C. 208. There are some special exceptions to this, which we need not now explain: 10 Bing. 243; 3 Id. 444. It is thus that the law is generally understood in this state, when the thief can be ascertained and found; and on this rule the case was rightly tried. The rule of course suspended the Statute of Limitations until the claims of the public were satisfied by the termination of the criminal prosecution; and this suit was within six years after that, and therefore in time.
The private wrong was not merged in the public one, nor is the public prosecution intended to supersede the private action. Their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Levi
... ... Moses v. Bradley, 3 Whart. 272; Hutchinson v ... Bank, 41 Pa. 42; Morch v. Raubitschek, 159 Pa ... 559; State v. Bradneck, 37 A. 492 ... ...
-
Kroen v. Bedway Sec. Agency, Inc.
...no more in privity with the district attorney than any other citizen of the Commonwealth. Cf., Malloy, supra, citing Hutchinson v. Bank of Wheeling, 41 Pa. 42, 45 (1861) and Commonwealth v. Walker, 468 Pa. 323, 331, 362 A.2d 227, 231 (1976). 5 And finally, appellant did not have a full and ......
-
In re Barach
... ... proceeding: Morch v. Raubitschek, 159 Pa. 559; ... Campbell's Case, 197 Pa. 581; Hutchinson v ... Bank, 41 Pa. 42; Davies's Case, 93 Pa. 116 ... Before ... MOSCHZISKER, C.J., ... ...
-
V. J. R. Bar Corp. v. Com., Liquor Control Bd.
... ... on the same conduct. Pennsylvania has recognized this ... principle, see Hutchinson v. Merchants' and ... Mechanics' Bank of Wheeling, 41 Pa. 42 (1861) ... (theft); Commonwealth v ... ...