W. L. JERNIGAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a forgery conviction because the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime as alleged in the indictment. The court found that the evidence did not support the claim that the forgery was committed with the intent to injure or defraud the named individual or any unknown person.
No, the state failed to prove an essential element of the forgery offense as alleged. The evidence did not support the claim of intent to injure or defraud Henry Farrington or any unknown person.
“The proofs show that the endorsement by the accused of Farrington's name on the warrant, gnd the.collection of the money could not have injured Farrington, since the accused had before the warrant was issued paid Farrington all the county owed him and no intent to injure any other person is shown.”
Establishes the lack of evidence for the alleged intent to injure or defraud.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe accused was indicted for forging the endorsement of Henry Farrington on a county warrant. The indictment alleged the forgery was committed with th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Ctjriam.
The. indictment herein charges that the alleged forgery, by endorsement of a county warrant that was payable to Henry.Farrington, who had been employed by the accused to work for the county on the public roads, was committed or uttered by the accused “with intent to injure and defraud Henry Farrington and some person or persons to the grand jurors unknown.” The proofs show that the endorsement by the accused of Farrington’s name on the warrant, gnd the.collection of the money could not have injured Farrington, since the accused had before the warrant was issued paid Farrington all the county owed him and no intent to injure any other person is shown. If the warrant was at the instance of the defendant drawn for an amount in excess of the county’s indebtedness to Farrington, proof thereof would not sustain the charge as made. For the failure to prove an essential element of the oflense as alleged, the judgment must be and is hereby reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Tatlor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)…st of judgment was not error. Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 South. Rep. 894; King v. State, 43 Fla. 211, 31 South. Rep. 254; Turnipseed v. State, 45 Fla. 110, 33 South. Rep. 851; Miller v. State, 71 Fla. 338, 71 South. Rep. 280; Jernigan v. State, 83 Fla. 74, 90 South. Rep. 699; Poage v. State, 3 Ohio St. 229; 12 R. C. L. 141; 26 C. J. §16, p. 921; United States v. Jolly, 37 Fed. Rep. 108; Fry v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. Rep. 435, 182 S. W. Rep. 331, 332; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647, 59 South. Rep. 858; C…
-
Bruce Constr. Corp. v. THE State Exch. Bank, 102 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1958)…aintiff contends that the evidence shows that the promise of the defendants as made by Mintzer was direct and unconditional, i. e. that the defendants would pay the checks of Flamingo. Plaintiff cites Harvey v. Bank of Center Hill, 1922, 83 Fla. 55, 90 So. 699, 700, as authority for the proposition that a promise by which one “guaranteed the payment” of the notes of another is an independent promise not within the statute of frauds. Defendants argue that the testimony of both Summerall and Click, read to…
-
Des Rocher & Watkins Towing Co. v. Third Nat'l Bank of Miami, 106 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1932)…direct pecuniary value to the promisor, the transaction is not within the statute (see 5779 C. G. L.’s Fla. 1927), and the promisor’s liability is fixed by principal debt- or’s filure to pay at maturity. (Harvey vs. Bank of Carter Hill, 83 Fla. 55, 90 So. 699); that if one to strengthen the credit of a third person, agrees with a [*470] merchant to be responsible for goods to be sold in the future by him to such third person, and the merchant accepts the agreement, and acts upon it by selling goods, the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence