Nor will it be prevented from being such by the fact that a mistake. is made in his initials.32 As we have seen, it may be forgery to sign the name of a fictitious person with intent to defraud,33 and of course in such cases there can be no question of similitude, since there is no genuine signature to be imitated. § 577. Fraudulent intent-In general. An intent to defraud is an essential element of forgery at common law and under most of the statutes.84 It follows that a person is not guilty of forgery in Warren, 109 Mo. 430, 19 S. W. 191, 32 Am. St. Rep. 681. In Rollins v. State, 22 Tex. App. 548, 3 S. W. 759, 58 Am. Rep. 659, it was held that the defendant was properly convicted of forging an order for $4 worth of goods addressed to Apollas & Halsal and purporting to have been drawn by Joel Eller, where the order read: "Apolas & Halsal: Please let M. G. B. Rollins have 4 $00 d. in goods," and was signed "Joel E3ler," and the indictment alleged what was meant. 32 Hall v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 267, 116 S. W. 808. 38 See § 559, supra. 34 United States. Long, 30 Fed. 678. United States v. Alabama. Hurst v. State, 1 Ala. App. 235, 56 So. 18. California. People v. Turner, 113 Cal. 278, 45 Pac. 331; People v. Mitchell, 92 Cal. 590, 28 Pac. 597, 788; Ex parte Sanders, Cal. App. 190 Pac. 647; Carl v. McDougall, Cal. App. 184 Pac. 885. Colorado. People v. McDonald, 53 Colo. 265, 125 Pac. 114. Delaware. State v. Anderson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 135, 74 Atl. 1097. District of Columbia. Dowling v. United States, 41 App. Cas. 11; Frisby v. United States, 38 App. Cas. 22. Georgia. Beall v. State, 21 Ga. App. 73, 94 S. E. 74; Harrison v. State, 13 Ga. App. 31, 78 S. E. 686. Illinois. People v. Pfeiffer, 243 III. 200, 90 N. E. 680, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 17 Ann. Cas. 703; Fox v. People, 95 Ill. 71. Louisiana. State v. Sturgeon, 127 La. 459, 53 So. 703; State v. Laborde, 120 La. 136, 45 So. 38. Maryland. Arnold v. Cost, 3 Gill & J. 219, 22 Am. Dec. 302. Massachusetts. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353; Com. v. Ladd, 15 Mass. 526. Michigan. Prine v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., 176 Mich. 300, 142 N. W. 377. Missouri. State v. Tyree, 201 Mo. 574, 100 S. W. 645; State v. Cordray, 200 Mo. 29, 98 S. W. 1, 9 Ann. Cas. 1110; State v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547, 42 S. W. 1076; State v. Gullette, 121 Mo. 447, 26 S. W. 354; State v. Eades, 68 Mo. 150, 30 Am. Rep. 780. New Jersey. Rohr v. State, 60 N. J. L. 576, 38 Atl. 673. New York. People v. Corrigan, 195 N. Y. 1, 87 N. E. 792, aff'g 129 App. Div. 75, 113 N. Y. Supp. 513; People v. Browne, 118 App. Div. 793, 103 N. Y. Supp. 903, aff'd 189 N. Y. 528, 82 N. E. 1130; People v. Hegeman, 57 Misc. 295, 107 N. Y. Supp. 261; Parmelee v. People, 8 Hun 623; People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. 198, 19 Am. Dec. 477. signing another's name to an instrument, if he believes that he has authority to do so, though he may in fact have no authority.3 35 And of course it is not forgery if he actually has such authority.36 If Ohio. Barnum v. State, 15 Ohio 717, 45 Am. Dec. 601; Hess v. State, 5 Ohio 5, 22 Am. Dec. 767. Oregon. Willetts v. Scudder, 72 Ore. 535, 144 Pac. 87; State V. Wheeler, 20 Ore. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Sankey, 22 Pa. St. 390, 60 Am. Dec. 91. South Carolina. State v. Bullock, 54 S. C. 300, 32 S. E. 424; State v. Washington, 1 Bay 120, 1 Am. Dec. 601; State v. Floyd, 5 Strob. 58, 53 Am. Dec. 689. Tennessee. Hill v. State, 1 Yerg. 76, 24 Am. Dec. 441. Texas. Fry v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 73, 215 S. W. 560; Meredith v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 147, 164 S. W. 1019; Cyphers v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 504, 150 S. W. 187; Ashmore v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 502, 150 S. W. 196; Montgomery v. State, 12 Tex. App. 323. Vermont. State v. Shelters, 51 Vt. 105, 31 Am. Rep. 679. Wisconsin. Schmidt v. State, 169 Wis. 575, 173 N. W. 638. England. Reg. v. Parish, 8 Car. & P. 94; Rex v. Forbes, 7 Car. & P. 224; Rex v. Bontien, Russ. & R. 260; Rex v. Sheppard, Russ. & R. 169. A fraudulent intent is essential under a statute making it forgery to falsify corporate books or records, Spilker v. Abrahams, 133 N. Y. App. Div. 226, 117 N. Y. Supp. 376; or to wilfully certify falsely, etc. 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. The intent must exist at the time of the forgery. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353. The term "defraud," as here used, implies the obtaining of an unconscionable advantage to one party or the unjust deprivation of property or rights belonging to the other. People v. Hegeman, 57 N. Y. Misc. 295, 107 N. Y. Supp. 261. Where a person receives a check made out to a person having the same name as himself except that the middle initial is different, it is not forgery for him to indorse it in the name as written if he honestly believes it was intended for himself. State v. Anderson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 135, 74 Atl. 1097. 35 Arkansas. Rickman v. State, 135 Ark. 298, 205 S. W. 711; Williams v. State, 131 Ark. 264, 198 S. W. 699; Claiborne v. State, 51 Ark. 88, 9 S. W. 851. Illinois. Kotter v. People, 150 Ill. 441, 37 N. E. 932. Mississippi. Scott v. State, 91 Miss. 156, 44 So. 803. New York. Parmelee v. People, 8 Hun 623. Oregon. Willetts v. Scudder, 72 Ore. 535, 144 Pac. 87. Texas. Thanks v. State, 25 Tex. 326; Meredith v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 147, 164 S. W. 1019; Davis v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 253, 156 S. W. 1171. England. Reg. v. Beard, 8 Car. & P. 143; Reg. v. Parish, 8 Car. & P. 94; Rex v. Forbes, 7 Car. & P. 224. 36 People v. Browne, 118 N. Y. App. Div. 793, 103 N. Y. Supp. 903, aff'd 189 N. Y. 528, 82 N. E. 1130; Meredith v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 147, 164 S. W. 1019; Cyphers v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 504, 150 S. W. 187. An officer or stockholder of a corporation has no authority to authorize an employee or other person to forge or alter receipts or other instruments there is no such authority, however, and no belief that there is, one who signs another's name to an instrument is none the less guilty of forgery because he believes that the person whose name he signs will ratify his act and pay the obligation,37 or because such person subsequently condones or ratifies his act.38 And a person who has authority to sign another's name to an instrument for the payment of money in a stated amount, or for a legal purpose, may commit forgery by signing for a larger amount, or for an illegal purpose, with intent to defraud.39 It is no defense to a charge of forging an instrument used or capable of being used as evidence of a claim against the person whose name is forged that the claim is in reality a just one.40 Nor is it a defense that the person whose name is forged to an obligation or who pays a forged obligation is indebted to the forger, and that the latter intends to apply the amount realized on the debt,41 especially where the person liable to be defrauded by the instrument is not the affecting its liability, and such authorization is not a defense. Com. v. Peakes, 231 Mass. 449, 121 N. E. 420. 37 Rose v. State, 80 Ark. 222, 96 S. W. 996; People v. Weaver, 177 N. Y. 434, 69 N. E. 1094; Meredith v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 147, 164 S. W. 1019; Reg. v. Beard, 8 Car. & P. 143. The fact that a father has in two or three instances paid checks to which his son wrongfully signed his name does not warrant a finding that he meant thereby to give the son authority to sign his name in the future, or constitute a defense to a charge of forgery based on the subsequent signing of another check. Tongs v. State, 130 Ark. 344, 197 S. W. 573. 38 State v. Tull, 119 Mo. 421, 24 S. W. 1010; Countee v. State (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 127. 39 Claiborne v. State, 51 Ark. 88, 9 S. W. 851. So a person having authority to sign the clerk's name is guilty of forgery if he signs it to a false instrument. Moore v. Com., 92 Ky. 630, 18 S. W. 833. Arkansas. Claiborne v. State, 51 Ark. 88, 9 S. W. 851. Illinois. People v. Meyer, 289 Ill. 184, 124 N. E. 447. Texas. Morville v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 551, 141 S. W. 98. Washington. State v. McBride, 72 Wash. 390, 130 Pac. 486. The mere fact that the person whose name is forged is indebted to the defendant does not give the latter authority to sign his name to a mortgage. Curtis v. State, 118 Ala. 125, 24 So. 111. debtor,4 42 nor that the defendant believed that he had a right to resort to forgery to collect the debt.43 Nor is it a defense to a prosecution for forging a deposition that the facts stated therein were true, or that the defendant believed them to be true.44 An intent to profit by the forgery is not necessary, but it is sufficient if some person may be prejudiced by it.45 And one who signs another's name to an obligation is guilty of forgery, though he may intend ultimately to take up the instrument, and may believe that no one will be injured by his act,46 and even though he may himself subsequently pay the obligation.47 An intent to defraud need not necessarily be proved by direct or positive evidence, but it may be inferred from circumstances. So it may be inferred from the forging and uttering of an instrument, where the defrauding of another is the necessary consequence and result.48 But it will not be inferred or presumed from the mere making of a false instrument.49 § 578. General or particular intent. In some jurisdictions it has been held that there must be a specific intent to defraud some 42 Plemons v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 555, 72 S. W. 854. 43 Com. v. Peakes, 231 Mass. 449, 121 N. E. 420. 44 State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409. 45 State v. Laborde, 120 La. 136, 45 So. 38. It is no defense that the defendant could not legally and successfully reap any personal advantage. State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541. 46 Reg. v. Geach, 9 Car. & P. 499. 47 See § 579, infra. 48 United States. United State v. Long, 30 Fed. 678. Alabama. Williams v. State, 126 Ala. 50, 28 So. 632; Hurst v. State, 1 Ala. App. 235, 56 So. 18. Delaware. State v. Anderson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 135, 74 Atl. 1097. District of Columbia. Frisby v. United States, 38 App. Cas. 22. Illinois. People v. Meyer, 289 Ill. 184, 124 N. E. 447. Iowa. State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541. Louisiana. State v. Laborde, 120 La. 136, 45 So. 38. Maine. State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409. Massachusetts. Com. v. Peakes, 231 Mass. 449, 121 N. E. 420. New York. People v. Browne, 118 App. Div. 793, 103 N. Y. Supp. 903, aff'd 189 N. Y. 528, 82 N. E. 1130. England. Rex v. Sheppard, Russ. & R. 169. The question is to be determined by the jury from the circumstances relating to the act, as shown by the evidence. Willetts v. Scudder, 72 Ore. 535, 144 Pac. 87. 49 Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 41 L. Ed. 624, 17 Sup. Ct. 235; State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409; People v. Hegeman, 57 N. Y. Misc. 295, 107 N. Y. Supp. 261. It must be gathered from some af particular person, and that a general intent to defraud is not enough.50 But according to the weight of authority there need not be an intent to defraud a particular person, and a general intent to defraud some one will suffice.51 It is sufficient if there is an intent to defraud the United States, 52 or a state,53 or county,54 or the estate of a decedent,55 or the defendant's wife.56 § 579. Injury. While an intent to defraud is always necessary to constitute forgery, it is not at all necessary that the fraud shall be in fact accomplished. The inquiry is not whether anyone has been actually defrauded, but whether anyone might have been defrauded; and it is never necessary, unless expressly required by the firmative act, or from the existence of circumstances from which criminal intent may be inferred. Dowling v. United States, 41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 11; Frisby v. United States, 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 22. 50 Williams v. State, 51 Ga. 535; Barnes v. Com., 101 Ky. 556, 41 S. W. 772; Barnum v. State, 15 Ohio 717, 45 Am. Dec. 601; Reg. v. Hodgson, Dears. & B. 3, 7 Cox C. C. 122, 36 Eng. L. & Eq. 626. And see Reg. v. Tylney, 1 Den. C. C. 319. 51 Alabama. Hurst v. State, 1 Ala. App. 235, 56 So. 18. Iowa. State v. Blodgett, 143 Iowa 578, 121 N. W. 685, 21 Ann. Cas. 231. Louisiana. State v. Laborde, 120 La. 136, 45 So. 38. Maryland. Arnold v. Cost, 3 Gill & J. 219, 22 Am. Dec. 302. Massachusetts. Com. v. Peakes, 231 Mass. 449, 121 N. E. 420; Com. v. Segee, 218 Mass. 501, 106 N. E. 173. Missouri. State v. Gullette, 121 Mo. 447, 26 S. W. 354. New Jersey. Rohr v. State, 60 N. J. L. 576, 38 Atl. 673. New York. People v. Hegeman, 57 N. Y. Misc. 295, 107 N. Y. Supp. 261. Oklahoma. Williams v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 82, 142 Pac. 1181. Texas. Ashmore v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 502, 150 S. W. 196. Wisconsin. Schmidt v. State, 169 Wis. 575, 173 N. W. 638. Where a person signs another's name to an order for money and gets the money, the law will presume an intent to defraud the person whose name is signed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Rose v. State, 80 Ark. 222, 96 S. W. 996. 52 Carrell v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 198, 184 S. W. 217. The federal statutes make it an offense to forge certain instruments with intent to defraud the United States. United States v. Plyler, 222 U. S. 15, 56 L. Ed. 70, 32 Sup. Ct. 6; Neff v. United States, 165 Fed. 273. 53 Moore v. Com., 92 Ky. 630, 18 S. W. 833; State v. Zimmerman, 79 S. C. 289, 60 S. E. 680; Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S. W. 886, 4 Am. St. Rep. 760; Carrell v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 198, 184 S. W. 217. 54 Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S. W. 886, 4 Am. St. Rep. 760; Carrell v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 198, 184 S. W. 217. 55 Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N. E. 914, 7 N. E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77. 56 State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409. |