¶1 The Attorney General has properly confessed error on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction for forg'ery, and uttering a forged instrument. The facts bring the case squarely within the principles decided in Harrison v. State, 72 Ark. 117, 78 S. W. 763, and State v. Adcox, 171 Ark. 510, 286 S. W. 880. The instrument was not forged, but was simply a check drawn by the defendant on a bank by a name by which he was commonly known. Under the' common law and under the statutes defining forgery, as at common law, the genuine making of an instrument for the purpose of defrauding does not constitute forgery.
180 Ark. 266
21 S.W.2d 156
Binganan v. State
Decided October 28, 1929
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1929-10-28
Relies on State v. Adcox · Harrison v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1929-10-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2010
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →