TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Majors v. State

C. L. Majors v. State of Nebraska

Majors v. State, 190 N.W. 1020 (Neb. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 8, 1922
Docket
No. 22605
Judges
Aldrich, Day, Flansburg, Letton, Morrissey, Redick, Rose
Citations
190 N.W. 1020109 Neb. 3161922 Neb. LEXIS 63

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

In a prosecution by the state in the district court for Lancaster county, defendant, under the name of “Mrs. C. L. Majors,” was convicted of uttering a forged check knowing it to be forged, and for that felony was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term not less than one nor more than twenty years. As plaintiff in error she presents for review the record of her conviction.

Insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction *317 is urged as a ground for a reversal of the judgment. The alleged forged check was dated October 7, 1921, was apparently drawn by H. E. Meyer on the Bank of Roca for $20, and was payable to C. L. Majors. The state proved the following facts: A person representing himself to be H. E. Meyer had previously presented himself at the Bank of Roca, had deposited $30, and had opened au account. Defendant went to the grocery of Brehrn & Son, at Twenty-seventh and Vine streets, Lincoln, on or about October 8, 1921, bought a bill of groceries amounting to less than $4, uttered the check for $20, and received the balance in change. The check was worthless and defendant swindled the confiding grocers out of at least $20. The evidence also shows that she cheated other merchants in the same manner and that she procured money under false pretenses. However, she was not charged with that offense and cannot be punished for it in this prosecution. In law there can be no legal conviction in a prosecution for uttering a forged instrument without proof of the forgery. While there is proof that'defendant uttered the check, there is no proof that it was forged. For this reason, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1954: 119542026peak 1954 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Berg v. State61 N.W.2d 837 (Neb. 1954)

Most recent

  1. Berg v. State61 N.W.2d 837 (Neb. 1954)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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