People v. Curling
New York Supreme Court
THE prisoner was convicted at a court of oyer terminer, in the city and county of New-Tork, in January, 1806, of forgery. The indictment contained four counts, on a forged check on the Manhattan Company, signed, “ Daniel Ludlow &? Co.” The first count charged the forgery to have ■ been committed with an intent to defraud Daniel Ludlow, and Daniel Ludlow, junior.
Read the full summary
THE prisoner was convicted at a court of oyer terminer, in the city and county of New-Tork, in January, 1806, of forgery. The indictment contained four counts, on a forged check on the Manhattan Company, signed, “ Daniel Ludlow &? Co.” The first count charged the forgery to have ■ been committed with an intent to defraud Daniel Ludlow, and Daniel Ludlow, junior. The second count charged it to have been done with intent to defraud the President and Directors of the Manhattan Company. The fourth count charged the uttering of the check scienter, with intent to defraud Daniel Ludlow. On the…
1Per curiam
Though the forgery was of the copartnership name of Daniel Ludlow & Co. it was not necessary to state an intention to defraud every individual of the company : the omission, therefore, of the name of one of the partners in one count, and of two of them in another, is not fatal. By our statute, forgery is complete, if it be done with intent to defraud any “ person.” Though an intention, therefore, may have existed, to defraud every member of society, through whose hands the check passed, nothing more was required than that any one person, thus intended to be defrauded, should be designated. An…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Provins v. LoviSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
- Levells v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
- Frazer v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- West v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1849
- United States v. PetersonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1846
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.