People v. Moses
| Decision Date | 05 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 25804.,25804. |
| Citation | 31 N.E.2d 585,375 Ill. 336 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MOSES. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John Sbarbaro, Judge.
Henry Moses was convicted of larceny, and he brings error.
Affirmed.Wm. Scott Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, Henry Moses, was indicted with Meyer Cohen in the criminal court of Cook county for larceny. The indictment consisted of three counts and the offense charged in each count related to the same transaction. The first count charged larceny as bailee of an automobile, the property of Sam Pantaleo, the second, larceny by embezzlement as agents, and the third, simple larceny. The value of the property was alleged to be $940. Cohen was not apprehended. Plaintiff in error waived trial by jury and, on hearing, the court made a general finding that plaintiff in error was guilty of larceny and the value of the property was fixed at $940. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled and plaintiff in error was committed to the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of one to ten years. A writ of error has been sued out of this court to review the record.
The evidence shows that Meyer Cohen was engaged in some kind of an automobile business under the name of Meyer Motor Acceptance and plaintiff in error had a working arrangement with him, the details of which are not shown. Sam Pantaleo negotiated with plaintiff in error for the purchase of a new Buick automobile and about May 1, 1939, a sale was completed and a Buick automobile delivered. Pantaleo gave his used automobile and $950 cash for the new car. The certificate of title issued by the Secretary of State was in Pantaleo's name under date of May 5, 1939. A few days following the delivery of the automobile to Pantaleo, he telephoned plaintiff in error the car was ‘pumping oil.’ Plaintiff in error called and left a car for Pantaleo's use and took the Buick. Pantaleo testified it was taken for repairs and was to be returned to him. Plaintiff in error stated the automobile did not need repair but that Pantaleo was displeased with the car and desired a smaller one and engaged plaintiff in error to sell it; that he came into possession of the property with Pantaleo's consent and with the intent that the title to the property should be vested in him for the purpose of sale. Soon after plaintiff in error acquired possession of the automobile he began negotiating with Herman L. Winograd for the sale of a Buick car. The negotiations were completed May 15 and plaintiff in error delivered the Pantaleo car to Winograd on the representation that it was a new car and received in exchange Winogard's used car and $500 in cash.
It is not denied that subsequent to plaintiff in error's acquiring possession of the Pantaleo car, but before May 15, Pantaleo made two or more inquiries about his automobile and that plaintiff in error told him it had been sent to the factory in Michigan for repairs. May 16, Pantaleo made further inquiry about the return of his property and on that date plaintiff in error proposed he would give him back his money and delivered to Pantaleo a check signed ‘Meyer's Motor Sales, by Meyer Cohen.’ On the reverse side was the endorsement ‘in full payment for 1939 Buick car, Sam Pantaleo.’
On presentment for payment the check was dishonored for insufficient funds. Pantaleo complained to plaintiff in error that the check was worthless and plaintiff in error promised to return the Buick car. June 9, Pantaleo received a judgment note for $950 from plaintiff in error, signed Meyer Motor Acceptance, by Henry Moses, Meyer Cohen. Later, Meyer Motor Acceptance paid $200 on the note.
The only point urged for reversal is that the Buick automobile came into the possession of plaintiff in error by the consent of the owner and with the intent that the title should pass for the purpose of making a resale. From this it is argued that such facts do not constitute larceny.
To sustain a conviction on the count charging larceny as bailee it was necessary the evidence show there was a bailment and that the property was held by plaintiff in error as bailee. People v. Robinson, 352 Ill. 596, 186 N.E. 484;People v. Wildeman, 325 Ill. 99, 156 N.E. 257, 52 A.L.R. 500. If personal property is delivered by one person to another under an agreement that the same property is to be returned to the person delivering it in the same or an altered form, the contract is one of bailment and the title to the property remains in the bailor. If the property is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Miss. Valley Livestock, Inc.
...the receiver is at liberty to return another thing of equal value, or the money value ... it is a sale.”); see also People v. Moses, 375 Ill. 336, 31 N.E.2d 585, 587 (1940) (bailment exists when goods are “disposed of in some particular manner as directed or agreed upon for [the owner's] be......
- Ryan v. Deneen
-
Maulding v. United States
...embezzlement, larceny, or conversion of the entrusted property, and not of the misappropriated proceeds of the sale. See People v. Moses, 375 Ill. 336, 31 N.E.2d 585; State v. Edwards, 345 Mo. 929, 137 S.W.2d 447; Commonwealth v. Williams, 93 Pa.Super. 7 See Coney v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 38......
-
People v. Wheeler
... ... While each constitutes a separate offense under the statute and evidence of one offense will not support a conviction under a count charging the other offense, yet a general finding of guilty of larceny is sufficient if the evidence warrants a conviction under any count. People v. Moses, 375 Ill. 336, 31 N.E.2d 585;People v. Greben, 352 Ill. 582, 186 N.E. 162. Plaintiff in error was charged with the single offense of larceny by bailee and was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. There is no merit in the first and third assignments of error. Plaintiff in ... ...