State v. Healy
| Decision Date | 31 October 1871 |
| Citation | 48 Mo. 531 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOHN S. HEALY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
J. C. Moody, with whom were Hunter and Macdonald, for appellant, cited 2 Bish. Cr. Law, § 280-315; 2 Russ. Crimes, 167-72; 5 Denio, 76; 7 and 8 Geo. IV, ch. 29, § 47; 6 Conn. 9; 3 Paine, 423; 7 Paine, 833; 3 Carr. & P. 422; 7 Carr. & P. 281; 14 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 277; 22 id. 759; 41 id. 274; 47 id. 63.
C. P. Johnson, Circuit Attorney, for respondent.
The defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of embezzlement. It seems that he was an examiner of titles and negotiator of loans, and, as such, undertook to purchase a lot for one Tobin. He contracted for the lot at the sum of $4,000, and as Tobin did not have the money to pay for the same, defendant negotiated a loan for that amount, and Tobin secured its payment by executing a deed of trust on certain property which he owned. This deed of trust defendant took and placed on record, and still retained the money in his hands. After concluding the contract for the purchase of the lot it was discovered that there was a defect in the title, and so the contract could not be consummated and carried out. Healy, the defendant, kept the money which he had borrowed for Tobin, and refused to pay it over to Tobin, and admitted that he had met with some misfortune, and used the money for his private benefit. When the note that Tobin gave for the loan became due, he was unable to pay it, and his property was sold under the deed of trust. The title to the lot was in litigation, and whether the contract of purchase could ever be completed depended upon the event of the suit. The only ground now urged for a reversal is that the defendant could not legally be convicted because there was no one rightfully entitled to receive the money. But this is clearly a mistake. As the person who sold the lot could not make a title he could not receive the money and had no claim to it. The money was then the absolute property of Tobin, and should have been paid over on demand, and defendant's refusal to pay and conversion of the money rendered him liable. He was the agent and employee of Tobin, and accountable to him only. It was no concern of his what the relations of the vendor of the lot and Tobin might subsequently be. He had Tobin's money, and he illegally kept and converted it to his own use. There is obviously no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Florian
...State v. Miller, 57 S.W.2d 1080; State v. Ross, 279 S.W. 411; State v. Watkins, 87 S.W.2d 184; State v. Cunningham, 154 Mo. 161; State v. Healey, 48 Mo. 531; 6 C.J. 1084; v. Adams, 300 S.W. 738; State v. Gould, 46 S.W.2d 886; State v. Cochran, 80 S.W.2d 182; State v. Foley, 247 Mo. 607; Sta......
-
Southern Commercial Savings Bank v. Slattery's Administrator
... ... that a ruling to the contrary would be detrimental to the ... business interests of the State and would open the way to the ... perpetration of similar frauds. The argument, however, could ... more properly be considered by the Legislature ... ...
-
McKee v. Higbee
... ... for further answer says, that Emaline Sisson, who was an aunt ... of plaintiff and this defendant, departed this life in the ... State of California on the 23rd day of February, 1901. That ... [79 S.W. 409] ... the time of her death [180 Mo. 272] and for many years prior ... ...
-
Long Brothers Grocery Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
... ... up to the time of the renewal. In fact, there was none. The ... embezzlements were all after May 1, 1901. State v ... Healy, 48 Mo. 531. (4) Primarily it must be remembered ... that this is an action upon a contract of insurance. 1 ... Cooley's Brief of the ... ...