Wells v. State

15 S.E. 679, 89 Ga. 788
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 1, 1892·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[788] Judgment reversed.

After verdict of guilty, the defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds, among others, that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and that the court erred in charging the jury, that if Smith authorized the defendant to sign his name to a note for $25 for a Wheeler & Wilson machine, and he signed his name to a note for $50 for a New Home machine, and received no other authority than the authority given to sign his name to a $25 note, that would be a forgery; that if one who is authorized by another to sign his name to a note for a given amount, being thus constituted his agent for that purpose, signs his name to a note of a different amount than that authorized, it is a forgery. Ti-iornton & MoMichael and George P. Munro, for plaintiff in' error. Albert A. Carson, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Wells v. State, 15 S.E. 679, 89 Ga. 788 (Ga. 1892).

15 S.E. 679 (Wells v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosenquist v. Harris
138 F. Supp. 21 (D. North Dakota, 1956)
Hoffer v. Crawford
65 N.W.2d 625 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1954)
Johnson v. State
87 Miss. 502 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1905)