TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Baumon

State v. Baumon, 2 N.W. 956 (Iowa 1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 21, 1879
Judges
Rothrock
Citations
2 N.W. 95652 Iowa 68
Headnotes
1. Criminal Law: forgery: what constitutes. It ismoi necessary to constitute the crime of forgery that the instrument made or uttered should possess all the requisites of commercial paper. The signing of the name of another to an order requesting the payment to the bearer of a sum of money was held to be forgery, although neither the drawee nor payee was named therein.
Summary
Appeal from Johnson District Court. On the 7th day of June, 1877, the following indictment was returned into court by the grand jury of Johnson county. The charging part of' the bill is as follows:. “ The grand jurors do aver, find aud present that Frederick Baurnon, at and within said county, on the 25th day of February, 1877, witli intent to defraud, did falsely make, forge and counterfeit a certain pretended order, it being an instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of one John T. Singleton, •and by which a pecuniary obligation was and is purported to be created against the said John T. Singleton. The said false, forged and counterfeit instrument in writing is in words and figures following, to-wit; ^February, 25th, 1877. 'iDea/r Sir: — Please let the bearer of this have five dollars <on my charge. £JonN Singleton.’ “ That the said false, forged and counterfeit order or instrument in writing aforesaid was by the said Frederick Baumon intended to be an order drawn upon one John Leydell, and the name John Singleton signed thereto was by him meant and intended to represent the name of John T, Singleton.” Said indictment contained another count charging the defendant with feloniously Uttering said forged instrument. The defendant filed a demurrer to said indictment which was in these words: “ And now comes the said defendant and demurs to the indictment herein found, because the instrument set forth in the indictment does not purport to create any legal liability, and the forgery thereof or uttering the same does not constitute a crime under the laws of the State of Iowa.” The demurrer was sustained, and the defendant discharged. The State appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rothrock

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rothrock, J.

The demurrer does not point out specifically the objections urged to the form of the instrument or order, and there is no argument for the appellee. It is said by counsel for the State that it was claimed that the instrument was incomplete on its face in two particulars. 'First, that the payee is not named in the instrument, and Second, that the *70 drawee Is not named therein. It seems to be -well settled that to constitute the crime of forgery, in falsely making or uttering an order or instrument, of this character, it is not necessary that either the payee or drawee be named in the instrument. Evans v. The State, 8 O. St., 197; People v. Brigham, 2 Gibbs (Mich.), 550; Chidester v. The State, 25 O. St., 433; People v. Stearns, 21 Wend., 409 ; Noakes v. People, 25 N. Y., 380 .

It is not necessary that the order should possess all the requisites of a bill of exchange. The false making of any instrument in writing, being or purporting to be the act of another, by which any pecuniary demand or obligation is or purports to be created, is forgery. Code, section 3917. That the written instrument set forth in the indictment purports to create a liability against the person whose name is written thereto seems to us to be apparent.

Reversed’.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1894: 11895: 11910: 11922: 11964: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Phillips14 C.M.A. 620 (1964)
  2. Burnett v. State92 So. 521 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922)
  3. Forcy v. State131 S.W. 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910)
  4. State v. Vineyard40 P. 173 (Mont. 1895)
  5. Kennedy v. State26 S.W. 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1894)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Phillips14 C.M.A. 620 (1964)
  2. Burnett v. State92 So. 521 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922)
  3. Forcy v. State131 S.W. 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910)
  4. State v. Vineyard40 P. 173 (Mont. 1895)
  5. Kennedy v. State26 S.W. 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1894)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Stearns, 21 Wend. 409 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1839) 31
Noakes v. People, 25 N.Y. 380 (1862) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list