Commonwealth v. Ryan
30 N.E. 364, 155 Mass. 523, 15 L.R.A. 317 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A servant who receives property from a third party on behalf of his master, and who forms the intent to misappropriate it before the property is placed into the master's possession, is guilty of embezzlement. The temporary placement of the property into a repository like a cash drawer, done merely for the servant's own convenience while maintaining an intent to steal, does not constitute a transfer of possession to the master that would make the subsequent taking larceny.
Facts:
- The defendant was employed by Sullivan to sell liquor at Sullivan's store.
- Sullivan sent two detectives to the store with Sullivan's own marked money to make a purchase from the defendant.
- One of the detectives purchased liquor from the defendant using the marked money.
- The defendant dropped the money into the money drawer of a cash register that was already open.
- The defendant did not register the sale, which was the customary procedure.
- Within approximately one to two minutes, the defendant took the money from the drawer.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with embezzlement in a trial court.
- At trial, the defendant's counsel requested that the judge rule as a matter of law that the facts supported a charge of larceny, not embezzlement.
- The trial judge denied the defendant's request and instructed the jury on embezzlement.
- The defendant was convicted of embezzlement.
- The defendant appealed the conviction to the state's highest court, arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing to rule that the crime was larceny.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a servant's act of placing money, received from a third party on behalf of his master, into the master's cash register for a brief moment before taking it, transfer possession to the master as a matter of law, thereby making the crime larceny instead of embezzlement?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
No. A servant's momentary placement of funds into a master's cash register does not automatically transfer possession to the master if the servant intended to steal the funds all along and was merely using the drawer for his own convenience. The historical distinction between larceny and embezzlement hinges on whether the master had possession of the property before the conversion. Property delivered to a servant by a third party is not in the master's possession until the servant does something to transfer it. The mere physical presence of money in the till is not conclusive if the servant has not relinquished control and intended from the outset to appropriate it. Therefore, if the jury found the defendant intended to steal the money before placing it in the drawer and only used the drawer as a temporary holding place, his act constitutes embezzlement, not larceny.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fine and historically-rooted distinction between larceny and embezzlement, which turns on the concept of possession. It establishes that a transfer of possession from a servant to a master is not merely a physical act but also involves the servant's intent. The case solidifies the principle that an employee's state of mind is critical; if the intent to steal is formed before the employer gains legal possession, the crime is embezzlement. This precedent requires courts to look beyond the physical location of property and examine the employee's intent to determine when possession truly passes to the employer, thereby influencing how theft-by-employee cases are prosecuted.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Ryan