Court Opinion

ID: 9825910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:18:56.923578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:53.060099
License: Public Domain

Grieeiet Smith, Chief Justice, concurring. In Central Surety Fire Corporation v. Williams I dissented on the' ground, not then expressed, that the plaintiff easily had it within his power to prevent the swindle, hence only a business casualty — made possible by negligence — was involved. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in that case contracted with the idea that because the Legislature, in fixing the punishment for false pretense took larceny as the measure, a fraudulent business transaction would find compensation in an insurance policy covering larceny, such as the plaintiff there relied upon. The same situation exists in the case now being disposed of. However, under the rule announced for Williams, and in view of the stipulation that Yeargan delivered the check for the purpose of “wrongfully obtaining possession”, Cagle finds a haven of protection. The Court’s construction appears to he that the larceny occurred when possession was surrendered, and not when the physical act of asportation took place.