Norton v. People
This text of 8 Cow. 137 (Norton v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We are not entirely satisfied that the complaint was sustained in the court below on the merits, even had the property been rightly laid; but clearly it was not so laid. ' The general property was in the defendant below. There was a special property in the sheriff by virtue of the levy; but none whatever in Dickenson, who received and took charge of it for the sheriff. At most, he was a receiptor, who has no right of property. This was held in Dillenbach v. Jerome, (7 Cowen, 294;) and the Commonwealth v. Morse, *(14 Mass. Rep. 217,) cited and recognized in the former case, is in point.
Again; if a larceny was committed, the defendant was not a principal. He was accessary before, and probably after the fact; but that is not the offence charged. The conviction must be reversed.
Conviction reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Cow. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-people-nysupct-1828.