W. C. MINGER, 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.
W.C. Minger challenged an indictment for forging an endorsement on a check, arguing the indictment was insufficient. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the two-count indictment was properly denied a motion to quash because the second count adequately described the forgery offense and provided sufficient notice to the defendant.
The indictment was sufficient. A motion to quash a multi-count indictment is properly denied if any single count is good, and the second count adequately described the forgery offense by setting out the check and identifying the forged endorsement, providing the defendant with sufficient notice of the charges and the ability to prepare a defense.
“A motion to quash the entire indictment consisting of more than one count is properly denied if either count be good.”
Establishes the rule that a multi-count indictment survives a motion to quash if any single count is sufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMinger was indicted on two counts for forging an endorsement on a check dated May 25, 1923, from The Bank of Bonifay for $80.46 payable to Lucy E. Gra…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Quash cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, C. J. — The transcript of the record in this case presents but one question, the sufficiency of the indictment, the court having overruled motion to quash.
The bill of exceptions was presented and signed after the expiration of the time allowed by the order of the court and under the rule long since adopted in this jurisdiction, where this fact affirmatively appears from the bill of exceptions itself, this bill cannot be considered by the court, although no motion to strike the same has been made by the opposite party.
See Potsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Bush v. The State, 21 Fla. 569; Jackson v. The State, 84 Fla. 646.
The indictment in this case was in two counts.
The motion to quash the indictment was overruled.
The defendant was found guilty under the second count of the indictment. A motion to quash the entire indictment consisting of more than one count is properly denied if either count be good.
Sigsbee v. The State, 43 Fla. 524, 30 So. 816; Wolf v. The State. 72 Fla. 572, 73 So. 740.
The second count in the indictment reads as follows: “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that W. C.
Minger on the 25th day of May, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Plundred Twenty-three, at and in the county and state aforesaid, did upon the back of a certain paper in writing of the tenor following, to-wit: Bonifay, Fla. 5-23-1923 No. 22 The Bank of Bonifay 63-143 Pay to the order of Lucy E.
Grayson $80.46 Eighty and 46/100............................Dollars For.................... C. R. Mathis, Agent. unlawfully, falsely and feloniously make, forge and counterfeit an endorsement thereon in the following words, to-wit, “Lucy E.
Grayson,” with the intent to injure and defraud C. R. Mathis and some person or persons to the Grand Jury unknown.”
That the motion to quash the indictment was properly denied is well established by the decisions of this court.
Smith v. The State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 895; Miller v. The State, 71 Fla. 338, 71 So. 280; Akin v. The State, 86 Fla. 564; 98 So. 609.
The “certain paper in writing” is set out in the indictment and shows itself to be a check on a bank, which is in effect an order for money within the meaning of Section 5206 of the Revised General Statutes.
The indictment as a whole shows with sufficient clearness that the crime charged consisted in forging the endorsement of the payee’s name on the check.
This was sufficient to advise defendant fully as to his defense, and to enable one of common understanding to know what was intended and to enable the court to pronounce the proper judgment in case of conviction.
There is nothing here showing a tendency to mislead the defendant or to embarrass him in the preparation of his defense, or that would subject him to the danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the Opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1954)…, but merely enlarges the offense, Hepburn v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 133, 149 So. 196. A check drawn on a bank, as here, is comprehended by the statute, Sinclair v. State, supra, 46 So. 2d 453; Murray v. State, 127 Fla. 593, 173 So. 437; Minger v. State, 91 Fla. 79, 107 So. 416. Endorsement of a check may also be the subject of forgery, Smith v. State, supra, 59 So. 2d 625; Minger v. State, supra. By the better-reasoned authority at common law it is not forgery to obtain another person’s signature on an instr…
-
Bussart v. State, 128 Fla. 891 (Fla. 1937)…named therein, being a chose in action, was not the [*896] subject of larceny at common law, see 17 R. C. L. 29, 33, but is made so by the statute making it larceny for anyone' to steal the “order” of another. Sec. 7223 C. G. L. See Minger v. State, 91 Fla. 79, 107 So. 416; Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253; Walker v. State, 114 Fla. 500, 153 So. 911. The information charged the defendant with larceny of $175.00 in lawful money, whereas the proof was that a check fo'r $175.00 was received from the…
-
Murray v. State, 127 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1937)…234 C. G. L. The question has been settled in this jurisdiction adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error certainly since the filing of the opinion in the case of Miller v. State in 1916, 71 Fla. 339, 71 Sou. 280; and in Minger v. State, 91 Fla. 79, 107 Sou. 416; we held in terms: “A check drawn on a bank is in effect an order for money within the meaning of Section 5206 of the Rev. Gen. [*595] Stats., and hence subject to forgery under the provisions of said section.” The second contention…
Authorities Cited
- Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)
- Gottschalk Potsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895 (Fla. 1880)
- Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1892)
- Wolf v. State, 72 Fla. 572 (Fla. 1917)
- Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1922)
- Sigsbee v. State, 43 Fla. 524 (Fla. 1901)
- Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272 (Fla. 1879)
- Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569 (Fla. 1885)
- Miller v. State, 71 Fla. 338 (Fla. 1916)