Case XLII: Restitution, on Account of the Purchase of Stolen Goods

Anastasia, saleswoman in her sister Lucia’s store, buys provisions which their vender, a housekeeper, has secretly taken out of her allowance, as she considers herself entitled to them through her economy in the management of the household, and also to improve her wages, which she considers insufficient. Anastasia purchases these things, partly not to expose this person in the presence of others, and partly because her sister has told her she may safely do so, and that the responsibility for the truth of the assertion rested with the housekeeper.

Is this proper, or is there in regard to the injury done to the housekeeper’s employer the obligation of restitution, and in what order?

Answer. 1. The housekeeper can not be considered justified in appropriating anything over the agreed wages, under the pretext of compensation. To make such a thing permissible it would have to be proved that the person had been forced to work for unfairly low wages. This is not to be supposed in our case. The pretext of economical saving may be regarded more leniently, if in reality the articles ordinarily used in the household were supplied at a saving.

2. The purchase, on part of Anastasia and Lucia, is of articles which at least are very doubtful property of the vender; that a great part of these wares are the property of another, therefore stolen, is morally certain. Consequently their purchase is unlawful; nor does it become lawful because Anastasia hesitates to expose the vender; she can and must refuse the deal, and in order to talk this over with the housekeeper alone this person may be asked to wait until all other customers have left.

3. As there is acquisition of very doubtful, even positively unrighteous, property, the obligation of restitution prevails. As concerns the order, the housekeeper is liable in the first place; she must refund to her employer the value received, or, in case the articles were sold below their value, the actual value of all things to which she had no certain claim; in regard to the balance between the real value and the price received, she is entitled to reimbursement from Lucia’s cash drawer, which profited by this difference in price. In the second place, if, namely, the housekeeper can not, or will not, make restitution, Anastasia and Lucia are liable for the loss which the employer has suffered. The entire loss must be refunded if the injustice of the appropriation is positively ascertained; if the injustice remains in doubt, the restitution may be reduced to a part, say one-half. Finally, it may be asked whether Anastasia is obliged before Lucia, or Lucia before Anastasia. As Lucia approved of Anastasia’s action and Anastasia bought only in Lucia’s name, the obligation of restitution falls first of all upon Lucia. Should Anastasia make restitution she would, in case the housekeeper could not be made to reimburse her, be entitled to recover the money from Lucia; both, however, Anastasia as well as Lucia, are entitled to reimbursement by the housekeeper for the money paid to her.

August Lehmkuhl, S.J.