Criminal Law

Brief

Commonwealth v. Tluchak

Procedural History:

• Lower court convicted for Larceny.
• Appealed.
• Reversed.

Facts:

• Appellants agreed to sell their farm to the prosecutor and his wife by written agreement.
• The agreement did not include any personal property but covered the following:
  • All buildings, plumbing, heating, lighting fixtures, screens, storm sash, shades, blinds, awnings, shrubbery and plants.
• Purchasers took possession on June 14, 1946.
• Discovered certain articles were missing.
• Commonwealth contended that the articles which were not covered by the written contract had been sold by an oral agreement between the two parties.
  • Appellants denied.
• The court is assuming that appellants sold but failed or refused to deliver goods to the purchasers.

Issue:

• Are the sellers guilty of larceny?

Holding:

• No, reversed.

Reasoning:

• Appellants had possession of the goods, not mere custody of them.
• Appellants still had lawful possession of said items after payment of the purchase price.
• One who is in lawful possession of the goods or money of another cannot commit larceny by feloniously converting them to his own use for the reason that larceny, being a criminal trespass on the right of possession, cannot be committed by one who, being invested with that right, is consequently incapable of trespassing on it.
• Defendants were retaining possession of goods, they did not trespass.