Delk v. State
Citations
- 64 Miss. 77
Syllabus
<p>1. Laboeny. Lucri causa. Intent in asportation.</p> <p>To constitute an element of larceny it is not necessary that the taking be lucri causa, but need only be fraudulent. Warden v. The State, 60 Miss. 638, and Hamilton v. The State, 35 Miss. 214, cited.</p> <p>2. Same. Asportation. Case in judgment.</p> <p>D. went secretly to the stable of another, led therefrom a jack belonging to the latter, and, when fifteen or twenty feet from the door of the stable, killed the jack and left it lying on the owner’s premises. Held, that if such removal was felonious, there was a sufficient asportation to constitute an element of larceny.</p>
Judges: Aknold
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1980-04-24· cited 1,166×
- Groover v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-12-17· cited 44×
- Croft v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 2008-10-09· cited 42×
- Dedeaux v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1921-03-15· cited 28×
- Royal v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1984-07-19· cited 12×
- Mapp v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1964-04-13· cited 10×
- State v. RueSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1898-05-19· cited 9×
- Harbin v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1981-08-19· cited 8×
- State v. RichardsUtah Supreme Court· 1955-05-19· cited 3×
- Leland v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1903-03-15· cited 1×
- Anthony Croft v. State of MississippiMississippi Supreme Court· 2007-06-06
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.