Legal Opinion

State v. Hearn

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 16, 1926No. 19667PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

The question presented by this record is whether or not there is a fatal variance where an indictment charges the forgery of a check with intent to defraud, and the uttering and publishing thereof with like intent, and the proof offered shows the check on its face to be genuine and the indorsement on the back a forgery, made with intent to defraud, and that such check was uttered and published with the same intent.

The section of the General Code, Section 13083, under favor of which this indictment was drawn, provides as follows:

“Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, alters, forges,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Akin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1923
  2. Holt v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Saucier v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. GingellOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. United States v. PaulingCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2004
  3. Quick Service Box Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1938
  4. Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
  5. Tiarks v. First National Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966

4 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