Snyder v. People

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: Cooley, J.:
• Citation: 26 Mich. 106
• Parties: William L. Snyder v. The People
• Decision Date: 07 November 1872

26 Mich. 106

William L. Snyder
v.
The People

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 7, 1872

Heard October 10, 1872

Error to Van Buren circuit.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Newton Foster and L. A. Tabor, for plaintiff in error.

Dwight May, Attorney General, for the People.

OPINION

Cooley, J.:

The plaintiff in error was informed against for arson, [26 Mich. 107] which is charged to consist in the felonious burning, in the night time, of the dwelling-house of Mary A. Snyder. On the trial it appeared that Mary A. Snyder was his wife, and defendant (below) insisted that he could not be guilty of arson in burning her house. He also claimed to be the owner of the house, in fact, and this claim was submitted to the jury, who found against him. The prosecution, on the other hand, gave some evidence tending to show that defendant had separated himself from his wife, and given up his residence in the state. This evidence, however, did not become important on the trial, as the court instructed the jury that a husband might be convicted of arson in burning his wife's dwelling house, though residing with her, and defendant was convicted accordingly.

The statute provides that, "Every person who shall willfully and maliciously burn in the night time, the dwelling-house of another," etc., shall be punished, etc.: Comp. L., § 5745. There are numerous decisions as to what is meant by the dwelling-house of another, as well at the common law as under like statutes to our own. Arson is an offense against the habitation, and regards the possession rather than the property: State v. Toole, 29 Conn. 342. The house, therefore, must not be described as the house of the owner of the fee, if in fact at the time another has the actual occupancy, but it must be described as the dwelling-house of him whose dwelling it then is: 2 East P. C., 1034; 4 Bl. Com., 220; Whart. Cr. L., § 1638; 2 Bish. Cr. L., 2d ed., § 24; Holmes' Case, Cro. Cas., 376; Spaulding's Case, 1 Leach 217; Commonwealth v. Wade, 17 Pick. 395. Even, it seems, though the occupation be wrongful: Rex v. Wallis, 1 Mood. C. C., 344; State v. Toole, 29 Conn. 342. It follows that a lessee could not be guilty of the felony in burning the premises occupied by him as such: 2 East P. C., 1029; 2 Russ. on Cr., 550; McNeal v. Woods, [26 Mich. 108] 3 Blackf. 485; State v. Lyon, 12 Conn. 487; State v. Fish, 3 Dutch. 323; State v. Sandy , 3 Ired. 570; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 55, while the landlord, during such occupation, might be: 2 East P. C., 1023-4; Sullivan v. State, 5 Stew. & Port., 175. A jail, it has been held, may be described as the dwelling-house of the jailer living with his family in one part of it: People v. Van Blarcum, 2 Johns. 105; Stevens v. Commonwealth, 2 Leigh 683. And it seems that the wife, because of the legal identity with the husband, cannot be guilty of the offense in burning the husband's dwelling, even though at the time living separate from him: March's Case, Mood. C. C., 182. This would doubtless be so held whenever the wife's domicil is regarded in law as identical with the husband's, which for many purposes is no longer the case when they live separate.

It must be evident from this summary of the law on this subject, that if the husband, living with his wife, has a rightful possession jointly with her of the dwelling-house which she owns and they both occupy, he cannot, by common-law rules, be guilty of arson in burning it. It remains to be seen whether the statutes have introduced any changes which would affect...