
    State of Mississippi v. Wyatt Hughes and Thomas Moore.
    Criminal Law. Larceny. Deeds. Oode 1892, §§1513, 1173, 1174.
    A deed to land is the subject of larceny, under code 1892, §1513, providing that such a deed is itself personal property, and code 1892, §§1173, 1174, making all personal property the subject of larceny.
    From the circuit court of Holmes county.
    Hon. W. F. Stevens, Judge.
    Hughes and Moore, appellees, were indicted for grand larceny, the stealing of a deed to land. They demurred to the indictment on the ground that the deed charged to have been stolen was not the subject of larceny. The demurrer was sustained, and the state appealed to the supreme court.
    
      Noel & Pepper and Mofvroe McOlurg, Attorney-General, for appellant.
    Under the statutes, code 1892, § 1513 and §§ 1173 and 1174, it is larceny to steal a deed to, land. The court below, therefore, erred in .sustaining the demurrer to the indictment, holding, in so doing, that a land deed is not the subject of larceny. The deed was certainly personal property. Oode 1892, § 1513. The stealing of any personal property is larceny. Oode 1892, §§ 1173, 1174.
    No counsel appeared for appellees.
   Whitfield, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The statute (§ 1513, code 1892) expressly declares a deed to land to be itself personal property, and §§ 1173, 1174, make all personal property the subject of larceny. It is obvious, therefore, that it was error to sustain the demurrer to the indictment. It is true that at common law title deeds to land passed by deed, descent, or devise to tbe grantee, heir, or devisee; .but tbe deeds • themselves were even then a species of personal property. See Darlington, Pers. Prop., p. 13; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 409, II. (2). In Anderson, Law Diet., p. 598, it is said: “The property must be j>ersonalty. At common law, taking a tree, flower, fruit, or title deeds is a trespass upon tbe land. But if any sucb object was severed by tbe owner, or by tbe thief at another time, that act made it personalty. Statutes have made felonious, appropriations of many sucb articles as formerly constituted trespasses. Formerly, also, bonds, bills, notes, and other evidences of debt, having no intrinsic value, and not importing property in tbe possession of tbe bolder, were not subjects of larceny.” Our statute (§ 1176) makes “bonds, bills, notes,” etc., tbe subject of larceny. See, also, § 1179. Tbe refinements of tbe common law on this subject have undergone great and necessary statutory change. Under our law it is clear that a deed is personal property, and tbe subject of larceny. See 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 783; 2 Barb. Or. Law, p. 785 (2).

Reversed, demurrer overruled, and cause remanded for trial.  