make a false statement of fact in an instrument which is in itself genuine,11 except where the rule has been changed by statute.12 Nor is it forgery for a person to sign his own name to an instrument, and falsely and fraudulently represent that he has authority to bind another by doing so.18 And on the same principle it has been held that a man does not commit forgery in signing the name of a pretended firm, and falsely representing that there is such a firm composed of himself and another.14 This rule has been changed in England by a statute which makes it forgery to sign another's name by procuration or otherwise, with intent to defraud.15 § 558. Making false writing in one's own name. A person may be guilty of forgery in making a false writing in his own name, 11 United States. United States v. Smith, 262 Fed. 191; United States v. Glasener, 81 Fed. 566; United States v. Moore, 60 Fed. 738; United States v. Wentworth, 11 Fed. 52. Colorado. De Rose v. People, 64 Colo. 332, 171 Pac. 359. Dakota. United States v. Cameron, 3 Dak. 132, 13 N. W. 561. New Hampshire. State v. Young, 46 N. H. 266, 88 Am. Dec. 212. New Mexico. Territory v. Gutierrez, 13 N. M. 312, 84 Pac. 525, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 375. Oregon. State v. Ford, 89 Ore. 121, 172 Pac. 802; State v. Wheeler, 20 Ore. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119. 12 In New York a statute makes it forgery for an officer authorized to take the proof or acknowledgement of an instrument which by law may be recorded, to wilfully certify falsely to the proof or acknowledgement of such an instrument. People v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 98 N. E. 474, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 754, aff'g 147 App. Div. 903, 131 N. Y. Supp. 1134. See also United States v. Davis, 231 U. S. 183, 58 L. Ed. 177, 34 Sup. Ct. 112; United States v. Staats, 8 How. (U. S.) 41, 12 L. Ed. 979. 13 Reg. v. White, 2 Car. & K. 404, 2 Cox C. C. 210, 1 Den. C. C. 208. 16 So it is not forgery for a person to execute an instrument purporting on its face to be executed by him as the agent of another, though he in fact has no authority from such other person to execute the same, In re Tully, 20 Fed. 812; People v. Bendit, 111 Cal. 274, 43 Pac. 901, 31 L. R. A. 831, 52 Am. St. Rep. 186; Barron v. State, 12 Ga. App. 342, 77 S. E. 314; State v. Taylor, 46 La. Ann. 1332, 16 So. 190, 49 Am. St. Rep. 351, 25 L. R. A. 591; State v. Willson, 28 Minn. 52, 9 N. W. 28; People v. Mann, 75 N. Y. 484, 31 Am. Rep. 482, aff'g 15 Hun 155; In re Heilbonn, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 429; Reg. v. White, 2 Car. & K. 404, 2 Cox C. C. 210, 1 Den. C. C. 208; nor for a person to falsely and fraudulently represent that he has authority to receive money for another, and to sign, not the other's name, but his own, to the receipt for the money. Rex v. Ascott, 6 Car. & P. 408. 14 Com. v. Baldwin, 11 Gray (Mass.) 197, 71 Am. Dec. 703. 15 Reg. v. Kay, L. R. 1 C. C. 257. And see Rex v. Holden, L. R. [1912] 1 K. B. 483, Ann. Cas. 1912 B 700. 16 United States v. Long, 30 Fed. 678; Com. v. Brewer, 113 Ky. 217, 67 i except where the statute requires that the instrument be or purport to be the act of another.17 So it is forgery for a person to sign his own name to an instrument with a fraudulent intent to have the instrument received as executed by another person having the same name.18 And it has also been held to be forgery for the grantor in a deed to antedate the same for the purpose of defrauding another, 19 or for a public officer to make a false instrument over his own signature as such officer.20 And it has been held that a partner may be guilty of forgery in signing the firm name without authority and with intent to defraud,21 although there is also authority to the contrary.22 § 559. Signing fictitious or assumed name, or name of dead person. It is not forgery for a person to sign a name not his own S. W. 994; Moore v. Com., 92 Ky. 630, 18 S. W. 833; Com. v. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 12 S. W. 264, 25 Am. St. Rep. 528; and the other cases cited in the following notes. 17 For a person to issue certificates over his own signature as a public officer is not forgery under such a statute. People v. Mann, 75 N. Y. 484, 31 Am. Rep. 482. 18 California. People v. Rushing, 130 Cal. 449, 62 Pac. 742, 80 Am. St. Rep. 141. Georgia. Barfield v. State, 29 Ga. 127, 74 Am. Dec. 49. Illinois. Beattie v. National Bank of Illinois, 174 Ill. 571, 51 N. E. 602, 43 L. R. A. 654, 66 Am. St. Rep. 318. Massachusetts. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353. Mississippi. Thomas v. First Nat. Bank of Gulfport, 101 Miss. 500, 58 So. 478, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 355. New York. People v. Peacock, 6 Cow. 72. Texas. Edwards v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 50, 108 S. W. 673, 126 Am. St. Rep. 767. England. Parkes' Case, 2 East P. C. 963, 2 Leach C. C. 775; Mead v. Young, 4 Term R. 28. But it is not forgery for a person to indorse a draft made and intended to be made payable to him personally, though he procures the loan which it represents by falsely representing that he owns land belonging to another person of the same name. Hoge v. First Nat. Bank, 18 Ill. App. 501. 19 Reg. v. Ritson, L. R. 1 C. C. 200. 20 For a justice of the peace to make a false bill of costs against a county. Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S. W. 886, 4 Am. St. Rep. 760. Or for a county surveyor to make a plat and certificate of a survey purporting to have been made by him, when no such survey was made. Com. v. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 12 S. W. 264, 25 Am. St. Rep. 528. Or for a postmaster to make out money orders to a fictitious person. Ex parte Hibbs, 26 Fed. 421. Or for a former town clerk to make a false bounty certificate as clerk, after his term of office has expired. People v. Filkin, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 589, 82 N. Y. Supp. 15, aff'd 176 N. Y. 548, 68 N. E. 1120. 21 Rex v. Holden, L. R. [1912] 1 K. B. 483, Ann. Cas. 1912 B 700. 22 Com. v. Brown, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 184. where he has adopted it, and uses it without any intent to deceive as to the identity of the signer.23 But forgery may be committed by signing a fictitious or assumed name, if it be done with intent to defraud, for this is the false making of an instrument.24 In such cases, however, it has been held that the credit must have been given, not 23 State v. Ford, 89 Ore. 121, 172 Pac. 802; State v. Wheeler, 20 Ore. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119. 24 United States. United States v. Mitchell, Baldw. (U. S.) 366, Fed. Cas. No. 15, 787. Alabama. Williams v. State, 126 Ala. 50, 28 So. 632. Arkansas. Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485, 121 S. W. 728, 134 Am. St. Rep. 83, 18 Ann. Cas. 480. California. People v. Jones, 12 Cal. App. 129, 106 Pac. 724. Kentucky. Com. v. Fenwick, 177 Ky. 685, 198 S. W. 32, L. R. A. 1918 B 1189. Maryland. Lyman v. State, 136. Md. 40, 109 Atl. 548. Massachusetts. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353. Michigan. Harmon v. Old Detroit Nat. Bank, 153 Mich. 73, 116 N. W. 617, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514, 126 Am. St. Rep. 467; People v. Warner, 104 Mich. 337, 62 N. W. 405; People v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, 23 N. W. 594. Missouri. State v. Warren, 109 Mo. 430, 19 S. W. 191, 32 Am. St. Rep. 681. Montana. State v. Vineyard, 16 Mont. 138, 40 Pac. 173. New Hampshire. State v. Hayden, 15 N. H. 355. New York. People v. Jones, 106 N. Y. 523, 13 N. E. 93; People v. Browne, 118 N. Y. App. Div. 793, 103 N. Y. Supp. 903, aff'd 189 N. Y. 528, 82 N. E. 1130; Brown v. People, 8 Hun (N. Y.) 562, aff'd 72 N. Y. 571, 28 Am. Rep. 183. Oregon. State v. Wheeler, 20 Ore. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119. South Dakota. State v. Larson, 39 S. D. 120, 163 N. W. 566. Tennessee. Abston v. State, 134 Tenn. 604, 185 S. W. 706. Texas. Boswell v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 161, 127 S. W. 820; Spicer v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 177, 105 S. W. 813; Allen v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 63, 68 S. W. 286, 100 Am. St. Rep. 839; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760. England. Reg. v. Rogers, 8 Cas. & P. 629; Rex v. Shepherd, 2 East P. C. 967, 1 Leach C. C. 226; Rex v. Bolland, 2 East P. C. 958, 1 Leach C. C. 83; Reg. v. Ashby, 2 Fost. & F. 560; Lewis' Case, Fost. C. L. 116; Rex v. Lockett, 1 Leach C. C. 94, 2 East P. C. 940. Indorsing the name of a fictitious payee named in a warrant. Harmon v. Old Detroit Nat. Bank, 153 Mich. 73, 116 N. W. 617, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514, 126 Am. St. Rep. 467. Indorsing a bill or note by signing a fictitious name, and negotiating the same, representing that the indorsement is by a man of credit. Rex v. Bolland, 2 East P. C. 958, 1 Leach C. C. 83; Rex v. Lockett, 1 Leach C. C. 94, 2 East P. C. 940. Making a money order in a fictitious name. Ex parte Hibbs, 26 Fed. 421. Executing and negotiating a note in an assumed name with intent to defraud. Rex v. Marshall, Russ. & R. 75; Rex v. Whiley, Russ. & R. 90; Rex v. Francis, Russ. & R. 209. to the accused, but to the fictitious or assumed name which is signed to the instrument.25 Forgery may also be committed by signing the name of a person who is dead.26 § 560. The subject of forgery-General principles. Both at common law and under most of the statutes any writing whatever may be the subject of forgery, provided it is of such a nature that it may prejudice another's legal rights.27 Stated in another way, forgery may be committed of any writing which, if genuine, might operate as the foundation of another man's liability or the evidence of his right.28 The instrument must be one which, if genuine, might injure another,29 and hence must have at least an apparent legal efficacy.30 In order to sustain a prosecution under a statute making certain specified instruments the subject of forgery, the particular instrument must come within the statute.31 But if the statute is not intended to cover the entire field and entirely repeal the common law,32 25 State v. Wheeler, 20 Ore. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119; Reg. v. Martin, L. R. 1 C. C. 214, 49 L. J. C. C. 11. See 21 Alb. Law J. 91; 1 Crim. Law Mag. 266. 26 Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N. E. 914, 7 N. E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77; Henderson v. State, 14 Tex. 503; Dreeben v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 341, 162 S. W. 501; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760. 274 Bl. Com. 247. See also the following decisions. Arkansas. Holloway v. State, 90 Ark. 123, 118 S. W. 256. Georgia. Berrisford v. State, 66 Ga. 53; Chambers v. State, 22 Ga. App. 748, 97 S. E. 256. Kentucky. Com. v. Miller (Ky.) 115 S. W. 234. Louisiana. State v. Stringfellow, 126 La. 720, 52 So. 1002. Maine. State v. Kimball, 50 Me. New York. People v. Rising, 207 N. Y. 195, 100 N. E. 694, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 466, rev'g 148 App. Div. 935, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1138. A non-negotiable instrument may be the subject of forgery. Dreeben v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 341, 162 S. W. 501. 28 In re Tully, 20 Fed. 812; State v. Hazzard, 168 Ind. 163, 80 N. E. 149; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647, 59 So. 858, Ann. Cas. 1915 A 1044. 29 See § 570, infra. 30 See § 571, infra. 31 White v. Wagar, 185 Ill. 195, 57 N. E. 26, 50 L. R. A. 60. A witness pay certificate may be the subject of forgery where the statute is broad enough to include it, although no such instrument was known to the common law or was authorized by statute at the time of the adoption of the forgery statute. State v. Bullock, 54 S. C. 300, 32 S. E. 424. 32 See § 69, supra. 409. an indictment for the forgery of an instrument not covered by it may still be maintained as a common-law indictment.33 To sustain a prosecution for forging an instrument which the statute makes the subject of forgery, it need not be shown to be of any value.34 § 561. Particular instruments. The following instruments, among others, have been held to be the subject of forgery: Checks and drafts,35 bills of exchange,86 promissory notes,87 acceptances, 38 indorsements on notes, bills, drafts, or checks,39 duebills,40 orders for goods 41 or for the payment of money,42 although they are not 33 State v. Kerr, 117 Me. 254, 103 Atl. 585; State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409; Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 441; People v. Shall, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 778. 34 Hurst v. State, 1 Ala. App. 235, 56 So. 18. 35 Com. v. Miller (Ky.), 115 S. W. 234; Laird v. State, 61 Md. 309. 36 Reg. v. Blenkinsop, 2 Car. & K. 531, 2 Cox C. C. 420, 1 Den. C. C. 280. 37 Cross v. People, 47 Ill. 152, 95 Am. Dec. 474; State v. Stratton, 27 Iowa 420, 1 Am. Rep. 282; State v. Hayden, 15 N. H. 355; Rex v. Marshall, Russ. & R. 75. 38 Reg. v. Mitchell, 1 Den. C. C. 282. 39 Dowling v. United States, 41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 11; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647, 59 So. 858, Ann. Cas. 1915 A 1044; Carrell v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 198, 184 S. W. 217; Dreeben v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 341, 162 S. W. 501; Rex v. Bolland, 2 East P. C. 958, 1 Leach C. C. 83; Rex v. Birkett, Russ. & R. 251; Mead v. Young, 4 Term R. 28. 40 Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. Rep. 639. 41 Alabama. Ala. 1. Hobbs v. State, 75 Arkansas. Stith v. State, 120 Ark. 170, 179 S. W. 178. Louisiana. State v. Alexander, 113 La. 747, 37 So. 711. Mississippi. Mackguire v. State, 91 Miss. 151, 44 So. 802. Missouri. State v. Gullette, 121 Mo. 447, 26 S. W. 354. New York. People v. Rising, 207 N. Y. 195, 100 N. E. 694, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 466, rev'g 148 App. Div. 935, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1138. South Carolina. State v. Webster, 88 S. C. 56, 70 S. E. 422, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 337. Tennessee. Hale v. State, 1 Cold. 167, 78 Am. Dec. 488. England. Rex v. Ward, 2 Strange 747. 42 Alabama. Williams v. State, 61 Ala. 33; Jones v. State, 50 Ala. 161. California. An order of the trustees of a school district upon the county superintendent of schools for a requisition upon the auditor for a county warrant. People v. Bibby, 91 Cal. 470, 27 Pac. 781. Georgia. Thomas v. State, 59 Ga. 784; Chambers v. State, 22 Ga. App. 748, 97 S. E. 256. Iowa. State v. Bauman, 52 Iowa 68, 2 N. W. 956. Louisiana. State v. Alexander, 113 La. 747, 37 So. 711. Massachusetts. Com. v. Ayer, 3 Cush. 150. |