Henry v. State
110 Ga. 750, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 621, 36 S.E. 55 (1900)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pledgor who takes the pledged property from the pledgee's possession with the felonious intent of depriving the pledgee of their security interest is guilty of larceny, as the pledgee has a special property right in the item sufficient for a larceny charge.
Facts:
- Sherman Henry arranged to board at a house owned by Tempie Mack.
- As Mack required payment in advance, Henry offered his trunk of clothes and a bicycle as security for his board, which Mack accepted.
- Henry delivered the trunk and bicycle to Mack's house, where they were placed in the room he occupied.
- Although Mack held the items as collateral, Henry was permitted to use the clothes and ride the bicycle occasionally.
- After accruing a $7.00 debt for board over three weeks, Mack made a demand for payment.
- Following the demand, Henry left the house, leaving the pledged items behind.
- A few days later, without Mack's knowledge or consent, Henry took a new suit of clothes from the trunk and the bicycle from the house.
- Henry subsequently sold the bicycle and was found wearing the new suit at his new place of work.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherman Henry was charged in the city-court of Albany with entering a dwelling with intent to steal and with larceny.
- Henry pleaded not guilty to the accusation.
- Following a bench trial, the judge of the city court found Henry guilty.
- Henry filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence.
- The city court judge overruled Henry's motion for a new trial.
- Henry (plaintiff in error) appealed the denial of his motion to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who pledges their own property as security for a debt commit larceny if they retake that property from the pledgee's possession with the intent to deprive the pledgee of their security?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
Yes. A general owner of property commits larceny by taking it from a pledgee's possession if done with the felonious intent to deprive the pledgee of their security. A pledgee holds a special property interest in the pledged item, which is sufficient to support a charge of larceny even against the pledgor. The court found that Henry's delivery of the trunk and bicycle to Mack constituted a valid pledge, giving her a security interest. Her permission for Henry to occasionally use the items did not extinguish her right of possession and control. The evidence, particularly Henry's taking and selling the property after Mack demanded payment, was sufficient for the trial judge to infer a fraudulent intent to deprive her of the security for the debt owed.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that larceny protects possessory and security interests, not just absolute ownership. It establishes that a person can legally 'steal' their own property if they have previously transferred a legally recognized interest, such as a pledgee's right to hold collateral, to another person. The decision reinforces the legal protection afforded to creditors, treating their security interest as a form of ownership for the purposes of criminal law. Future cases involving larceny by a general owner will turn on the existence of a valid bailment or pledge and evidence of the owner's fraudulent intent to defeat the bailee's or pledgee's interest.
