## Facts

- Thomas and George Nevill gave Sullens, their servant/employee, a £5 bank note or promissory note to obtain change.
- Sullens exchanged the note for silver coins but did not return the coins to the Nevills.
- Sullens converted the coins to his own use and left town.
- Sullens was indicted on two counts: (1) larceny of the note and (2) larceny of the silver received as change.
- At trial, Sullens was acquitted on the note count but convicted on the silver count.
- A question of law concerning whether the taking of the silver was larceny was reserved for decision by the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.

## Issues

1. Whether a servant who is entrusted with a negotiable instrument to obtain change commits larceny by appropriating the silver received in exchange.
2. Whether the servant’s limited authority to obtain change leaves legal possession (constructive possession) of the resulting proceeds with the employer, permitting a trespassory taking element to be found.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction for larceny of the silver.
- The court treated the servant’s authority as limited to obtaining change on the employer’s behalf, not acquiring possessory rights in the proceeds.
- The court concluded that appropriating the silver could be characterized as a trespassory taking from the employer’s constructive possession, satisfying larceny.

## Legal Principles

- An agent or servant may have physical control of property while the employer retains legal (constructive) possession.
- When a person is entrusted with an instrument or money for a specific, limited purpose (such as obtaining change), proceeds received under that authority remain the owner’s property in law.
- Misappropriation of proceeds obtained under limited authority can constitute larceny where the owner’s constructive possession is deemed to continue at the moment the proceeds are received.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a larceny conviction where a servant, sent to obtain change for a note, received coins on the employer’s behalf and then kept them, holding that the employer’s constructive possession of the proceeds supported treating the conversion as a trespassory taking.


Rex v. Sullens, 168 Eng. Rep. 1212 (C.C.C.R. 1826)