Love v. State

• Decision Date: 05 March 1887
• Parties: LOVE v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

3 S.E. 893

78 Ga. 66

LOVE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 5, 1887

Error from superior court, Pulaski country; KIBBEE, Judge.

Martin & Cochran, for plaintiff in error.

C. C Smith, Sol. Gen., (by Harrison & Peeples,) for the State.

HALL J.

The question on which this case turns is whether the contract between the defendant, Love, and the prosecutor, Grace, made on the twenty-eighth of December, 1885, conveyed the title to the corn alleged to have been stolen by the defendant, out of him, and placed it in Grace. If it did not so convey title the defendant could not have been convicted of larceny from the house, and a verdict finding him guilty would be contrary to law. Whether the contract under which it is claimed the title was conveyed to the prosecutor had that effect will depend upon its validity and completeness.

1. It is scarcely doubtful that this contract and sale was the result of duress on the part of the prosecutor towards the defendant, whose free will was constrained, and whose consent was induced by threats of the prosecutor to do him bodily harm. Those threats might have constrained his will, and actually have induced him to enter into this contract contrary to his will. If such were the case, it would not only avoid the contract, but do away with the sale which it is alleged was thereby affected. Code, §§ 2633, 2637, 2752; Crawford v. Cato, 22 Ga. 594; Jones v. Rogers, 36 Ga. 157. In both these cases the party who was induced to make the contract by duress was relieved from its operation and effect, and it was declared void in consequence of the illegal manner in which it was induced. In this case the defendant was a negro and a tenant of the prosecutor, who had borrowed from him corn, made on the place the previous year under agreement to return it at the end of the year 1885. The prosecutor had sold the defendant a mule, and at the time of the sale took from him a note for $170, payable on the first day of October, 1885; and at the same time executed to him a mortgage on a mule, and the corn and fodder then on the place, consisting of 100 bushels of corn and 3 stacks of fodder. This note and mortgage both bore date on the fifteenth of November, 1880, and the corn and fodder mentioned in them was that which the defendant was permitted to use, and which he promised to return at the end of 1885. It seems that the defendant on the twenty-eighth day of December, 1885, had paid all the rent due to the prosecutor for the year 1885, and had also paid a store account which he owed him; but, being unable to pay for the mule, he had delivered it to the prosecutor on that day, as he alleges, in satisfaction of the entire claim that the prosecutor had against him. The prosecutor insists that he was also to have the corn made on the place that year, and which was stored in the crib, in satisfaction of this claim. No price was agreed on for the corn or the mule, nor was the quantity of corn ascertained. The prosecutor supposed that there were ninety or a hundred bushels of corn in the crib, worth in the market 65 cents a bushel. This alleged contract was made on Saturday, and the prosecutor was to go on Monday to measure up the corn. At the same time, the defendant turned over to the prosecutor the key of the crib, which prosecutor redelivered to him, to enable him to get out some clothing and meat that belonged to his family. On the trial, the prosecutor swore that the defendant agreed to turn over to him all the corn and fodder in settlement of the demand he held against him. He testified that he cursed the defendant on Saturday, December 28th, and told him not to move the corn; said he ought to have cursed him more; and told him if he moved the corn he would hurt him. Borum, one of the state's witnesses, swore that he heard Grace, the prosecutor, say to the defendant that he would punish him if he moved the corn. The defendant replied that "he would have nothing more to do with it." Love, another witness for the state, swore that he was present on that day, and heard the prosecutor tell the defendant "if he moved the corn from the crib, he would get his meat." He was cursing the defendant, "and told him it was his corn, and not to move it; for if he did he would hurt him." The...