Case Name: Patrick McNeal vs. Henry Macomber et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1903-12-01
Citations: 25 R.I. 475
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick McNeal vs. Henry Macomber et al.
Judges: Present: Stiness, C. J., Tillinghast and Douglas, JJ.
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
Patrick McNeal vs. Henry Macomber et al.
PROVIDENCE
DECEMBER 1, 1903.
Present: Stiness, C. J., Tillinghast and Douglas, JJ.
(1) Trover. Landlord and Tenant. Larceny^
A tenant in possession, who removed carpets attached to the floor and let with the house, is not guilty of larceny, as the goods were not taken from the actual or constructive possession of the owner.
Trover..
Heard on exceptions to ruling of District Court. Exceptions sustained.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendants were tenants of thé plaintiff of a certain dwelling house, in which were some carpets attached to the floor and let with the house. After the defendants had removed, it was discovered that the carpets were gone. Thereupon the plaintiff brought this action of trover and conversion in the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District.
At the trial evidence was introduced tending to show that the defendants had taken away the carpets. It was urged by the defendants that such alleged taking was larceny,' and a motion for a nonsuit was made on the ground that a criminal complaint therefor should have been made before this action could be commenced.
The court granted the motion, on the authority of Struthers v. Peckham, 22 R. I. 8, and the' plaintiff brings the case to this court on exception to the ruling.
We think the exception must be sustained.
In the case cited the defendant was only custodian of the property. Here the defendants were in possession.
To constitute larceny the goods must have been taken from the actual or constructive possession of the owner. If, after the defendants had left the house and their tenancy andTightful possession of these goods had ceased, they had returned and taken them, such taking, with felonious intent, would have been larceny; but no such circumstances are shown by the record submitted here.
John W. Daniels, for plaintiff.
Thomas F. Vance, for defendants.
The exception is sustained, and the case will be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.