R. ENGLISH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
English was convicted of grand larceny for fraudulently obtaining money sent by wire to another person named Jones. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that English's fraudulent acquisition of possession from the telegraph company's bailee constituted larceny because the fraud vitiated any transfer of title.
English's conduct constituted grand larceny because the fraud vitiated any transfer of title to the money. Although possession was obtained from the telegraph company's bailee, no title passed to English. The fraudulent obtaining of possession from the bailee with preconceived felonious intent to appropriate the money constituted larceny.
“No title to the money passed to English and the possession obtained pursuant to a preconceived felonious intent to appropriate to his own use was larceny, because the fraud vitiates the transaction”
Establishes the core holding that fraudulent possession obtained with intent to appropriate constitutes larceny regardless of any attempt to transfer title
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEnglish, operating in Florida under the assumed name A. L. Jones, sent a telegram to person A in another state requesting a wire remittance to 'A. L. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unlawful Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction, on a charge of grand larceny. It appears that English, in this State, using the name of A.
L. Jones, sent a telegram to A. in another State, asking for a remittance by wire to A.
L. Jones. The remittance was made by wire to A.
L. Jones and the money was delivered in this State to an accomplice of English, one Kelly, who signed for it in the name of Jones and delivered the money to English. Jones knew nothing of the transaction. In making the remittance A. trans-¡ ferred the title to the money to Jones through the tele-j graph company as bailee. Possession of the money was delivered by the bailee to English through Kelly by reason of the fraud of English, in which Kelly participated. No title to the money passed to English and the possession obtained pursuant to a preconceived felonious intent to appropriate to his own use was larceny, because the fraud vitiates the transaction, and the money in pursu anee of the fraud was unlawfully taken from the lawful possession of the bailee of the owner with intent to feloniously appropriate it. The bailee gave no title to English. The ownership of the money was not improperly alleged to be in Jones to whom it was actually sent by A., and the possession fraudulently obtained from the bailee by Kelly was under the circumstances a fraudulent obtaining of possession from the bailee by English, who received the money from Kelly pursuant to the concerted fraud. See 17 R.
C. L. 13, and cases cited; 2 Wharton’s Crim. Law, p. 1351, Sec. 1126, 1167, and cases cited; People v. Miller, 169 N. Y. 339, 62 N.
E. Rep. 118, 88 Am. St. Rep. 546, text 569; Commonwealth v. Collins, 12 Allen (Mass.) 181; 2 Bishop’s New Crim. Law, §§ 812, 822.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown®. C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erle W. McGOUGH v. State, 293 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ly that the jury was perfectly justified in drawing this conclusion and thus in determining that McGough had simply stolen money from his employer to be used for his own benefit — virtually the hornbook definition of larceny, e.g., English v. State, 80 Fla. 70, 85 So. 150—but that no other conclusion could properly have been drawn from the facts by a jury of reasonable men. It simply strains credulity to its breaking point and beyond to suggest that the similarity of the schemes involved was merely coinci…