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

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 court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

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