Court Opinion

ID: 9858354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:20:52.742955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:57.644788
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., concurring. With respect to the two cows transferred to Morris, Justice Robinson and I would rest the decision on a different ground from that adopted by the majority. It is true that one who steals a chattel acquires no title that he can transfer to another, but it is also true that one who obtains property merely by fraud or trick acquires a voidable title that he can pass to an innocent purchaser for value. Pingleton v. Shepherd, 219 Ark. 473, 242 S. W. 2d 971. Morris, however, is not such a purchaser, for he merely credited the value of the cattle upon a pre-existing debt, which does not constitute the giving of value. Hamilton v. Rankin, 108 Ark. 552, 158 S. W. 496. Hence Morris is not entitled to retain the animals in any event, and it becomes unnecessary to determine whether Ray’s manipulations amounted to larceny or simply to fraud..