Conklin v. Cozart

Fifth Circuit

Conklin v. Cozart

158 F.2d 676, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2452

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1946

DocketNo. 11594

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 158 F.2d 676 (Conklin v. Cozart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conklin v. Cozart, 158 F.2d 676, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2452 (5th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s brief makes some statements not supported by the record. We cannot go outside the record for the facts. The only contention advanced by the petition for habeas corpus is that the tenth count of the indictment under which he is now imprisoned does not charge any offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 73. The count [677]*677clearly states that the defendant wilfully and falsely forged and counterfeited the indorsement of the payee on a check, in words “S. Weinstein, Weinstein Supply per S. Weinstein,” for the purpose of obtaining and receiving from the United States and their officers and agents the sum of $557.48, the check being a genuine obligation of the United States fully described and identified. It is settled that a forged indorsement on a genuine check of the United Stales is a forged “writing” included in Section 73. Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610; Buckner v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 255; De Maurez v. Squier, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 564. The other allegations are in the words of the statute. The sentence is entirely regular and valid.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s brief makes some statements not supported by the record. We cannot go outside the record for the facts. The only contention advanced by the petition for habeas corpus is that the tenth count of the indictment under which he is now imprisoned does not charge any offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 73. The count [677]*677clearly states that the defendant wilfully and falsely forged and counterfeited the indorsement of the payee on a check, in words “S. Weinstein, Weinstein Supply per S. Weinstein,” for the purpose of obtaining and receiving from the United States and their officers and agents the sum of $557.48, the check being a genuine obligation of the United States fully described and identified. It is settled that a forged indorsement on a genuine check of the United Stales is a forged “writing” included in Section 73. Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610; Buckner v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 255; De Maurez v. Squier, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 564. The other allegations are in the words of the statute. The sentence is entirely regular and valid.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F.2d 676, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-v-cozart-ca5-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack