## Facts

- Hernandez asked a neighbor for permission to borrow the neighbor’s horse to ride to San Antonio to mail letters.
- Hernandez promised he would return the horse the next day.
- The neighbor agreed and delivered the horse to Hernandez voluntarily.
- Hernandez rode to San Antonio and mailed the letters.
- Instead of returning the next day, Hernandez stayed in San Antonio for an additional two to three days.
- During that extended stay, Hernandez spent most of his time in a saloon drinking alcohol.
- Two to three days after arriving in San Antonio, Hernandez sold the neighbor’s horse to a willing buyer.
- Hernandez was tried and convicted of larceny for selling the horse.
- On appeal, Hernandez argued that he could not be guilty of larceny because he obtained the horse with the owner’s consent and larceny required a wrongful taking.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who initially acquires another’s property with the owner’s consent for a limited purpose can be convicted of larceny after later selling the property without authority.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed Hernandez’s larceny conviction.
- The court rejected Hernandez’s argument that lawful initial acquisition necessarily defeats larceny when the defendant later converts the property by an unauthorized sale.

## Legal Principles

- A consensual delivery of property for a limited purpose does not automatically bar a larceny conviction when the recipient later deals with the property in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
- A jury may infer an intent to permanently deprive from conduct such as keeping the property beyond the agreed time and selling it to another.
- When property is entrusted for a narrow, temporary use, an unauthorized sale can be treated as a wrongful taking sufficient to satisfy larceny’s requirements under the court’s analysis.

## Conclusion

Hernandez lawfully borrowed his neighbor’s horse to go to San Antonio and mail letters, promising to return it the next day, but he remained in town for several days—spending much of that time drinking in a saloon—and then sold the horse. The appellate court affirmed his larceny conviction, holding that the initial consent to a limited loan did not prevent larceny liability where Hernandez later converted the horse by selling it without authority.


Hernandez v. State, 20 Tex. App. 151 (1886)