Guffey v. The Continental Casualty Company
Decision Date | 07 May 1921 |
Docket Number | 22,970 |
Citation | 197 P. 1098,109 Kan. 61 |
Parties | HAZEL M. GUFFEY, Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1921.
Appeal from Dickinson district court; ROSWELL L. KING, judge.
Ruling affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. LIFE INSURANCE--Death While Resisting an Attempt to Take Suitcase--No Intent to Rob Deceased Shown. The plaintiff, to establish her claim that the deceased was killed by an assault upon him for the sole purpose of robbery, put upon the stand the only eyewitness to the tragedy, the man who killed him. His story was that he, a special agent for the railroad company, without a warrant attempted to get possession of a suitcase carried by the deceased which he thought contained intoxicating liquor and which he afterwards found did contain such liquor; that after striking the deceased over the head with a rubber club in order to get the suitcase, the deceased choked him until he was compelled to shoot in self-defense. Held, that from this testimony no proof or inference could be derived that the assailant had any intent to rob the deceased, and hence a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence was properly sustained.
2. SAME--Larceny Included in Robbery. Robbery includes larceny and may be deemed forcible larceny, and in order to constitute it there must be an intent to deprive the owner of the property taken, not temporarily, but permanently.
G. W Hurd, Arthur Hurd, and Bruce C. Hurd, all of Abilene, for the appellant.
C. S Crawford, and E. S. Crawford, both of Abilene, and George R. Sanderson, of Chicago, Ill., for the appellee.
The court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence, and from this ruling the appeal is taken.
The special agent testified that after the shot he went to the yard office with the suitcase and called a doctor, and told the yard crew to get a switch engine and take the wounded man to the station. "I then called up the city police and gave myself up." On cross-examination he testified:
He also testified that at the time of the shot he was unable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Long
...as defined under our former robbery statutes. The intent to permanently deprive was required to prove both offenses. In Guffey v. Continental Casualty Co., 109 Kan. 61, Syl. p 2, 197 P. 1098 (1921), it was held robbery as it was formerly defined, embraces the elements of "Robbery includes l......
-
State v. Olin
...of his property. The Clingerman decision further develops this point. The Kansas Supreme Court, quoting from Guffey v. Casualty Co., 109 Kan. 61, 197 P. 1098, 1099 (1921), said the following about a Kansas robbery statute which closely resembled the Idaho statute: [The statute provides that......
-
State v. Antwine
...court accepted the definition of robbery as being 'larceny committed by violence of the person of one put in fear.' In Guffey v. Casualty Co., 109 Kan. 61, 197 P. 1098, Syl. P 2, the court held that 'Robbery includes larceny and may be deemed forcible larceny, and in order to constitute it ......
-
People v. Banks, 50684
...* * * taking" with "criminal purpose." (67 Ill.2d 107, 110-12, 8 Ill.Dec. 99, 365 N.E.2d 337. Accord, Guffey v. Continental Casualty Co. (1921), 109 Kan. 61, 65, 197 P. 1098, 1099. See Note, Illinois Robbery Statute Construed: The Introduction of a Specific Intent Element People v. White, 2......