Eminent Domain. De Facto Corporations

1914 Virginia law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW thorities are in conflict. Some authorities hold that the same rule applies to this case that applies to the case where the larceny was in one county and the indictment in another, both counties being in the same state. State v. Bartlett, 11 Vt. 650; Worthington v. State, 58 Md. 403, 42 Am. Rep. 388; 1 BISHOP, CRIM. LAW, 8 ed., 76. Other cases hold that the accused can be indicted only in the state in which the crime was committed. People v. Schenck, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 479; Lee v. State, 64 Ga. 203, 37 Am. Rep. 67; Strouther v. Cone, 92 Va. 789, 22 S. E. 852. A distinction has sometimes been made when the property was stolen in one state and carried into another, and when it was stolen in a foreign country and brought into one of the states. Thus it was held that one who stole goods in a foreign country and brought them into Massa. chusetts was not guilty of larceny there. Commonwealth v. Upirichard 3 Gray (Mass.) 434, 63 Am. Dec. 762. But there is authority to the contrary. People v. Burk, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 129. In the case where larceny is committed in one state and the goods are taken into another the weight of authority seems to support the principal case, but there is much conflict and-the better rule would seem to be to deny the courts of the state into which the goods have been taken the right to punish the thief, because he is certainly guilty and liable to punishment in the state in which he committed the larceny, and it seems unjust to follow a rule by which a single crime may be punished twice. The rule against double jeopardy which prevents more than one punishment in the same state does not apply as between two states. MINOR, CONFL. LAWS, 503. EMINENT DOMAIN-DE FACTO CORPORATIONS.-The state applied for an
doi:10.2307/1064296 fatcat:h276zavmhjaubdw7u4zb3fnjsy