Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

162 Ala. 87

May v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 30, 1909

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1909-06-30

<p> Larceny. </p> <p>1. Larceny; Indictment; Ownership of Property. — A buyer of a chattel, title to which was retained, in the seller until the purchase price is paid, who obtains possession thereof, and who delivers it to a third person to be delivered to the seller, has title to the chattel as against every person except the seller until such third person delivers it to the seller, and an indictment for the larceny of such chattel, committed while in the custody of such third person, properly lays the ownership in the buyer.</p> <p>2. Same; Issue and Proof. — Although the indictment alleged the value of the property stolen to be $100.00, proof of any other value more than $25.00 is sufficient to sustain grand larceny.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1979

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1909-06-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ANDERSON, J.

¶1Lula Harris was the owner of the buggy, notwithstanding she held under a conditional sale from Matthews, who had a claim or title thereto, and the ownership could have been laid in her. She had the possession and control of same, and the title thereto, as against all except her vendor, Matthews. It is true she delivered it to Battle to return to Matthews before leaving for Savannah; but it was taken from her agent before he delivered it to Matthews, whose possession was her possession, and she could not have been *90ousted of her ownership of said buggy until it was restored to the vendor, Matthews. There was no reversible error in the oral charge of the court, excepted to, or in refusing charges 5, 6, 8, and A, requested by the defendant.

¶2There was no error in refusing charge 3 requested by the defendant. The state did not have to prove that the buggy was worth $100, but could convict for grand larceny if it was worth $25 or over.'

¶3There was no error in refusing charges 9 and 10 requested by the defendant.

¶4The ruling of the trial court upon the evidence was either free from error or was error without injury.

¶5The judgment of the criminal court is affirmed.

¶6Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and McClellan and Sayre, JJ., concur.
/162/ala/87 · .json · Public domain