Love v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
Criminal Law. Sales. Duress. Title. Before Judge Kibbee. Pulaski Superior Court. May Term, 1886. Love was indicted for larceny from the house. The property charged to have been stolen was certain corn be • longing to one Grace. The defendant was convicted. He moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted. The other facts are reported in the decision.
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Justice.
The question on which this case turns is, whether the contract between the defendant, Love, and the prosecutor, Grace, made on the 2Sth of December, 1885, conveyed the title to the corn, alleged to have been stolen by the defendant, out of him, and placed it in Grace. If it did not so convey title, the defendant could not have been convicted, of larceny from the house, and a verdict finding him guilty would be contrary to law. Whether the contract under which it is H aimed the title was conveyed to *68the prosecutor had that effect, will depend upon its validity and completeness.
1.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Crawford v. CatoSupreme Court of Georgia · 1857
- Flanders & Huguenin v. MaynardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
- Bowers v. AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872
- Jones v. George T. Rogers & SonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
3Cited by8 opinions
- Alfred R. Chouinard, II and Ginger Leigh Chouinard v. Alfred F. ChouinardCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Bond v. KiddSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Nicholls v. PopwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- King v. LewisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Commonwealth v. Tluchak Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.