Legal Opinion

People v. Canfield

California Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1916No. Crim. No. 1994PublishedCited by 41 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, Robert M. Clarke, Deputy Attorney-General, and Tracy Chatfield Becker, Deputy District Attorney, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

Defendant after conviction upon a charge of forgery, moved for a new trial. His motion was granted and from the order made in that behalf, the people appeal. Canfield was charged with forging a certain mortgage purporting to have been executed by Justin B. Cook, the owner of the real property described, in said mortgage to secure the payment of a promissory note for ten thousand dollars payable by Cook to one Helmer B. Rabild who was the mortgagee named in the instrument. The defendant was also charged in a separate count with the forgery of the name of the notary public appearing upon the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. ArlingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. People v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. People v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. People v. SarazzawskiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. People v. FerlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. People v. MegladderyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. State v. TaylorWashington Supreme Court · 1962
  5. People v. AsavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API