Commonwealth v. Kingsbury
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Callanan v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1961)
- People v. Palmisano (New York Magistrate Court 1928)
- People v. Díaz (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1915)
- Pueblo v. Díaz (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1915)
- Graff v. People (Ill. 1904)
- People v. McKane (Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York 1894)
- People v. McKane (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- State v. Setter (Conn. 1889)
- United States v. Mainieri (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1988)
- United States v. Earl Christopher Hunter, United States of America v. Hyland Hill (7th Cir. 1973)
- People v. Tavormina (N.Y. 1931)
- People v. Tavormina (New York Supreme Court 1930)
- People v. Rathbun (New York County Courts 1904)
- Graff v. People (Ill. App. Ct. 1903)
- Anthony v. Commonwealth (Va. 1892)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews (Mass. 1882)
- United States v. Rindskopf (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 1874)
- Elkin v. People (New York Supreme Court 1862)
- People v. Saunders (Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York 1859)
- Commonwealth v. O'Brien (Mass. 1853)
- State v. Noyes (Vt. 1853)
- People v. Richards (Mich. 1849)
- Lohman v. . the People (N.Y. 1848)
- State v. Murray (Me. 1838)
- Mowrey v. Walsh (New York Supreme Court 1828)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was afterwards delivered to the following effect by
The defendants are charged with conspiring to get possession of the chattels of Thomas Pom, then in his shop, to remove them from his shop, and to conceal them from him, under color of authority from the owner to sell them, and that they in fact carried their conspiracy into execution.
The fraudulently obtaining possession of the chattels of Pom, carrying them away, and secreting them, is unquestionably a felony; and the attorney-general very properly admits it. But he has argued that the conspiracy was a complete offence by itself before it was carried into effect, and therefore is not merged in the felony.
We have considered this case, and are of opinion that the misdemeanor is merged. Had the conspiracy not been effected, it might have been punished as a distinct offence; but a contrivance
The law is the same respecting misdemeanors. An intent to 'commit a misdemeanor, manifested by some overt act, is a misdemeanor ; but if the intent be carried .into execution, the offender can be punished but for one offence.
If the jury had acquitted the defendant of executing the conspiracy, and convicted him of the conspiracy only, sentence might have been passed against him for the misdemeanor, because the' offence is not laid to be done feloniously. But they have found him guilty of acts, which, without doubt, amount to a felony.
Judgment must be arrested.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.