Brown v. State
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Smith v. Embry (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
- Hunter v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
- Phillips v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
- Pharr v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)
- Geiger v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
- Adams v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
- Harvey v. State (Ga. 1905)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
I. Larceny, even of hogs, was, by section 105, of the old
2. The description of a thing must be always one of degree. It would be an encouragement to crime to require every imaginable mark of identity to be mentioned. Certainty to a reasonable intent is all the law requires.
In this case, the animal is called a pig, a designation which indicates, to some extent, its age and size. Its color is given, and that it had a white list around the neck. It is added, that it was not marked. The sex is not mentioned, but as was well said in the argument, the sex of a pig is not apt to be noticed. We think the description sufficient. The Code does not require the sex to be stated, as in the larceny of a horse. We think the size, age, color, prominent flesh mark, the statement that there was no ear mark, and that both pigs, together, were worth $2 00, is sufficient.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.