This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

May (D) forged his father's name as a cosigner for a loan from Horrocks. Horrocks had made loans to D before, and D's father had cosigned before. The next day D presented the application to Horrocks, who gave him a check for $4,000. D was indicted for uttering and passing and forging the note with intent to defraud. The evidence showed that D intended to pay back the monies and had intended to get a proper signature from his father at a later date. At trial, the jury was instructed that if they found that the note was forged and D had the forged note in his possession and passed it to Horrocks, they could infer an intent to defraud. D was convicted. D appealed; the intent to defraud must be proven affirmatively.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.