Page images

28. For Violation of Revenue Laws. 1

29. By Statute."-When the statute declares that the doing or omitting to do a certain act shall be followed by forfeiture of the thing concerning which the act is to be done, but effective only by judicial proceedings.3

30. Relief Against Forfeiture.-At an early date, equity granted relief against forfeitures and penalties in cases where justice was grossly violated; as, where one bound in an obligation to pay money paid it, but took no acquittance or took an acquittance without seal. This was extended to embrace forfeitures of bonds and mortgages, so as to permit redemption, notwithstanding a forfeiture at law. And the rule has since been settled that relief is proper when the court can give, by way of compensation, all that was expected or desired; in case of accident, mistake, fraud, or

v. Walsh, 44 Mo. 41; White v. McMurray, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 485.

Such forfeiture may be waived by any act or word recognizing or acknowledging the tenancy-equivalent to an estoppel; such as receiving rent due at a subsequent quarter, Collins v. Hasbrouck, 56 N. Y. 157: 15 Am. Rep. 407;-distraining for arrears, or giving a receipt therefor,Jackson v. Sheldon, 5 Cow. 448; Coon v. Brickett, 2 N. H. 163: contra, Jackson v. Allen, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 220;-but with knowledge of the forfeiture,-Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 227.

The English cases hold that a bare acceptance of the rent after forfeiture is not a waiver unless attended by other circumstances showing intention to continue the tenancy, except in case of a lease for life, where the acceptance of such rent will affirm the lease. Adams on Eject. 173; Doe v. Birch, 1 Mees. & W. 402; Dendy v. Nicholl, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 376; 27 L. J. C. P. 220; Doe v. Johns, Stark. 411; Grimwood v. Moss, 41 L. J. C. P. 239. But the American rule (founded on the doctrine of estoppel) is the best. Dermott v. Wallach, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 61; Collins v. Hasbrouck, 56 N. Y. 157; 15 Am. Rep. 407.

[ocr errors]

1. Cross v. U. S., 1 Gallis. (U. S.) 26; The Mars, 1 Gallis (U. S.), 192; The Ploughboy, I Gallis (U. S.), 41; The Salley, 8 Cranch (U. S.), 382; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 246; The Josefa Segunda, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 338; The Rochel v. U. S., 6 Cranch (U. S.), 29.

The U. S. district court has exclusive original jurisdiction in forfeitures, seizures, and penalties, under the United States laws. Act of Sept. 24, 1789; 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 395.

2. Walter v. Smith, 5 B. & A. 440; Van Diemans Land Co. v. Cockerell, 1 C. B.

$ C. of L.-29

(N. S.) 744; Dimes v. Canal Co, 9 Q. B. 491; Day 2. Frank, 127 Mass. 497; Lynde v. Thompson, 2 Allen (Mass.), 456; Ú. S. v. Distillery, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 255.

3; Fire Dept. v. Kip, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 226. Such forfeiture is within the statute of fraudulent conveyancing. Twyne's Case, Co. 80; s. c., Moore, 638. 4. I Spence Eq. Jur. 629; Underwood v. Swan, Car. I; I Rep. Ch. 86.

5. Lennon v. Napper, 2 Sch. & Lefr. 684; Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 273; I Story Eq. Jur. § 89; Bostwick v. Stiles, 35 Conn. 195; Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468; Smith v. Jewitt, 40 N. H. 530.


6. Peachy v. Duke of Somerset, I Stra. 447; Stoman v. Walter, 1 Bro. Ch. 418; 2 White & Tud. Lead. Cas. 992; Snell Eq. 274. Extended by statute 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35. § 14; 23 & 24 Vict. c. 126, § 2, to forfeiture for breach of covenant to insure against fire. Wms. Real Prop. 384; Woodf. Land. & Ten. 297 et seq. English conveyancing act of 1881, § 14, provides that forfeiture shall not be enforceable by action or otherwise unless and until lessor serves on lessee a notice specifying the breach and requiring him to remedy or compensate for the same, and lessee fails to comply within a reasonable time.

Relief from forfeiture is always proper when compensation in damages can be calculated with certainty. Giles v. Austin, 62 N. Y. 486; Rector v. Higgins, 48 N. Y. 533; Nelson v. Carrington, 4 Munf. (Va.) 332; Bracebridge . Buckley, 2 Price (Exchequer), 200; Hill v. Barclay, 16 Ves. 402; Giles v. Austin, 46 How. (Ń. Y.) 269. For the failure of the precise performance. Walker v. Wheeler, 2 Conn. 299; Messersmith v. Messersmith, 22 Mo. 369; De Forest v. Bates, 1 Ed. Ch. (N. Y.) 394; Hagar v. Buck, 44 Vt. 285; 8 Am. 449

surprise, unmixed with laches; 1 when unjust for creditor to take advantage of forfeiture. But equity will not interfere when the forfeiture is liquidated damages and proportionate, or when imposed by statute, nor against the condition that, if interest is not paid when due, the whole amount would thereupon become due and payable.

31. Of Stock or Shares in Corporations.5-For non-payment of principal or instalments, or any condition upon which the same was issued, if such power is expressly conferred by law or in the charter, which must be strictly followed, without favor, collusion, or mala fides. The power of forfeiture is a trust to be exercised in good faith for the benefit of the corporation and the general body of the members. Forfeiture is the reclamation, by corpora

Rep. 368; Voorhis . Murphy, 26 N. J. Soc., 106 Mass. 479; Rosenbach v. Salt Eq. 434; Malcolm v. Allen, 49 N. Y. 448; 2 Story Eq. Jur. § 1019.

1. Hancock v. Carlton, 6 Gray (Mass.), 39; Asher v. Pendleton, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 628.

2. Sanders v. Pope, 12 Ves. 289; Hill v. Barclay, 18 Ves. 60.

3. Powell v. Redfield, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 45; Reynolds v. Pitt, 19 Ves. 140; Green v. Bridges, 4 Sim. 96; Parker v Butcher, L. R. 3 Eq. 762, 767; Nichols v. Maynard, 3 Atk. 519; Downey v. Beach, 78 İll. 53; Capen v. Crowell, 66 Me. 282; Hubbard v. Callahan, 42 Conn. 524; s. c., 19 Am. Rep. 564; Herbert v. R. Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 221; Skinner 7. White, 17 Johns. 369; Skinner v. Dayton, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 535; Lowe v. Peers, 4 Burr. 22; 2 Poth. Ob. (by Evans) 85; Fonbl. Eq., B, 1, c. 3, 3: Eden on Inj. 22; Hill v. Barclay, 16 Ves. 403; Eaton v. Lyon, 3 Ves. 692.

4. Ferris v. Ferris, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 29; Reuben v. Prindle, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 336; Voorhis v. Murphy, 26 N. J. Eq. 434; Sterne v. Beck, 1 De G. J. & S. 595.

5. Small . Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 Comst. (N. Y.) 330; Mills v. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384; Stevens v. Hauser, 39 N. Y. 302; Bigg's Case, L. R. 1 Eq. 309: Woolaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 445; Creyke's Case, L. R. Ch. 63; Ex parte Barton, 28 L. J. Ch. 637; Ex parte Jones, 27 L. J. Ch. 668; Syster's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 233; Snell's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 22; Knights Case, 5 L. R. Ch. 707; 2 Add. Cont. 303. 6. Matter of Long Island R., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 37; Cotter v. Doty, 5 Ohio, 393; Small v. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 N. Y. 330; Plank Road Co. v. Vaughn, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 155; Downing v. Patts, 23 N. J. 66; 2 Kyd on Corp. 109; Clark v. Tucket, 3 Lev. 281; Waltham v. Austin, 1 Bulstr. 11, 12; Kirk v. Nowill, 1 Term Rep. 118; I Waterman on Corp. 252; Perrin. Granger, 30 Vt. 595; French v. Old South

Spgs. Nat. Bank, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 495; Master Stevedors Assoc. 2 Daly (N. Y.), 14; Carton v. Father Mathew Assoc. 3 Daly (N. Y.), 20; Westcott v. Minn. Co., 23 Mich. 145; Pentz v. Citizens Co., 35 Md. 73; Barton's Case, 4 De G. & J. 46; Fletcher's Case, 37 L. J. Ch. 49; Clarke v. Hart, 6 H. L. 633; Lesseps v. Architects Co., 4 La. Ann. 316; Deitweiler V. Breckenkamp, S3 Mo. 45. The power to forfeit must be expressly conferred, because it is not inherent and does not exist at common law. Williams v. Lowe, 4 Neb. 382. If it is attempted to sell the stock for the payment of assessments, it is in the nature of a proceeding in rem, and the jurisdiction can only be exercised by having the thing in the custody of the law. Williams v. Lowe, 4 Neb. 382.

7. Green's Brice's Ultra Vires (2d Ed), 186; R. Co. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124: R. R. v. Ritchie, 40 Mo. 425: Water Valley M. Co. v. Seaman, 53 Miss. 656; Klein v. R. Co., 13 Ill. 514; Mitchell v. Vermont C. M. Co., 40 N. Y. 406; Walker v. Ogden, 1 Biss. (U. S.) 287; Railroad v. Bolton, 48 Me. 441; Johnson v. Lyttle Iron Agency, 46 L. J. Eq. 786; Watson v. Eales, 23 Beav. 294; Eppes v. R. Co., 35 Ala. 33; Hughes v. Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 317; Heaston v. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275; Sands v. Sanders, 26 N. Y. 236; Turnpike Co. v. Meriwether, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 13; R. Co. v. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455. The following held that substantial compliance would be sufficient: Mining Co. v. McLister, L. R. I App. 39; Stokes v. Lebanon, etc., Co., 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 241.

8. Richmond's Case, 4 K. & J. 305; Sweney 7. Smith, L. K. 7 Eq. 324; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 498;—and the capital stock is a trust fund for creditors,-Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65;—and power of forfeiture must be exercised with justice and

tion, of the stock to its own use,1-another name for foreclosure.2

32. Of Ship. By the English Shipping Act, if any master or owner of a British ship conceals the British character of the ship or assumes a foreign character with intent to deceive any person entitled to inquire into the matter, the ship is forfeited to the


33. Of Tenancy.-Takes place when the tenant does any act inconsistent with his tenancy; such as alienation, attorning to adverse claimant or stranger, accepting lease from stranger, wilfully disclaiming tenancy, denial of landlord's title, or adverse claim of title, illegal use, or voluntary waste."



34. For Taxes. By non-payment. Without office found. Complete by legislative act, which must be strictly complied with and rigidly enforced. Common law does not apply.

35. Of Wages. By failure to perform contract.9

36. Waiver Of. By any act or word amounting to an estoppel; 10 such as accepting rent,11 receiving rent with knowledge of forequity. Sparks v. Liverpool Waterworks, 13 Ves. 433.

in good faith,-Manisty's Case, 17 S. J. 745; Dixon v. Evans, L. R. 5 H. L. 606; Gower's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 77; Stanhopes Case, L. R. I Ch. 161; Railroad v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 37; Mills v. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 386; Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 390; New Albany v. Burke, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 96; Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 365.

1. R. Co. v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314; Mason v. Caldwell, 5 Gilman (Ill.), 176; Richmond v. Caton, 24 Ill. 123; Carson v. Arctic Mining Co., 5 Mich. 288; Allen R. Co., 11 Ala. 437; R. Co. v. Pickens, 5 Ind. 247; R. Co. v. Inhab. of Prescot, 110 Mass. 213; R. Co. v. Fairclough, 2 Man. & Gr. 674; R. Co. v. Habetwhite, 2 M. & W. 715; R. Co. v. Kennedy, 4 Exch. 317.

2. Herkimer Co. v. Small, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 273; Mills v. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384; Danbury R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435; Mitchell v. R. Co., 17 Ga. 574. Contra, Ashton v. Burbank, Dill. (U. S.) 435; Sparks v. Water-works Co., 13 Ves. Jr. 428; Smith v. Maine Boys Tunnel Co., 18 Cal. III.

Forfeiture is a cumulative remedy, which may be deferred until the party has exhausted other remedies. Canal Co. v. Samson, I Binn. (Pa.) 70; Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 390; Conn. Co. v. Baily, 24 Vt. 465; Mechanics Co. v. Hall, 121 Mass. 272; R. Co. v. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79; N. O., etc., Co. v. Briggs, 27 La. Ann. 318; Spangler v. R. Co., 21 Ill. 270; Troy Co. v. McChesney, 21 Wend. (N.Y.) 296; R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536. It has been held that forfeiture of stock for non-payment of instalments is not relievable in

3. Merch. Shipp. Act 1854, s. 103, § 2; The Amendale, 2 P. D. 179, 218.

4. Jackson v. Kingsley, 17 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 158; Sharpe v. Kelly, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 430; Jackson v. Vincent, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 633; Bolton v. Landers, 27 Cal. 104; Brown v. Kellar, 32 Ill. 151.

5. Doe d. Cheeser v. Creed, 2 M. & P. 648; Landsell v. Gower, 17 Q. B. 589; Delancy v. Ganong, 9 N. Y. 9.

6. Machias Hotel Co. v. Fisher, 56 Me.


7. London v. Greyne, Cro. Jac. 182; Jackson v. Tibbitts, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 341. 8. 2 Desty on Tax. 782; Cooley on Tax. 461; Woodward_v. Sloan, 27 Ohio St. 592; Magruder v. Esmay, 35 Ohio St. 221. Covenant to pay rent, taxes, and assessments, with right of re-entry upon default to pay rent, lessor can regain possession on lessee's failure to pay taxes. Byrane v. Rogers, 8 Minn. 281.

9. Decamp v. Stevens, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 24; Boyle v. Parker, 46 Vt. 343; Patnote v. Saunders, 41 Vt. 66. If house is furnished to hired man in addition to a certain sum for wages for work, his ceasing to work forfeits his right to the house. McGee v. Gibson, I B. Mon. (Ky.) 105.

10. Hunter v. Osterhaudt, II Barb. (N. Y.) 33; Keeler v. Davis, 5 Duer (N. Y.), 507; Bowman v. Foot, 29 Conn. 331; Newman v. Rutter, 8 Watts (Pa.), 55; Ward v. Day, 33 L. J. Q. B. 254; Lash v. Druse, Wend. (N. Y.) 313: Chapman v. Kirby, 49 Ill. 211. 11. McGlynn v. Moore, 25 Cal. 384.

feiture; 1 but receiving rent is not a waiver of breach of other covenant.2

37. For Waste. For tenant for life, for years, in dower, by curtesy; to commit spoil or destruction voluntarily or permissively in houses, gardens, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments, to the disinherison of him who has the remainder or reversion in fee.3

FORGE.-See note 4.


I. Definition, 453.

II. Essentials of the Crime, 457. 1. False Making, 458.

2. Intent to Defraud, 459.

3. Must be Calculated to Deceive, 461. III. How Accomplished, 464. 1. By False Making, 465.

a. By Use of Another's Name, 465.
b. By Falsely Procuring a Genuine
Signature, 467.

c. By Fraudulent Alteration, 468.
d. By Use of Same Name, 468.
e. By Use of Fictitious Name, 469.
f. By Fraudulently Filling

Blanks, 471.

g. By Fraudulently Using False Dates, 472.

h. By Making False Entries, 472. (1) False Entries in Pass-books,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

V. Who May Commit Forgery, 489. VI. Uttering and Publishing, 489. 1. What is, Generally, 489.

2. Intent to Defraud, 493.

3. Possession with Intention to Utter, 495.

1. Ireland v. Nichols, 46 N. Y. 413; Watson v. Fletcher, 49 Ill. 498.

2. Bleeker v. Smith, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 530; and see Doe v. Gladwin. 6 Q. B. 953; Jackson v. Allen, 3 Cow (N. Y.) 220; Dendy v. Nichols. 4 C. B. 376; Doe v. Miller, 2 Carr. & P. 348; Doe v. Bindley, 12 Moore, 37; Doe v. Meux, 4 Barn. & Cres. 606; Doe v. Watt, 1 Man & Ry.694. 3. 1 Hilly. Ab. SS 34-48; 2 Bouv. Inst. 375; 2 Bl. Com. 281; Co. Litt. 53; Statute

[blocks in formation]

4. Description of Instrument, 510.
5. Venue, 522.

6. Averment of Extrinsic Facts, 523.
a. Averment of Incorporation, 525.
7. Joinder, 526.

XI. Evidence, 527.

1. Competency of Witnesses, 527.
2. Proof of Guilty Knowledge and
Fraudulent Intent, 528.

a. In General, 528.

b. Proof of Other Forgeries by Defendant, 530.

c. Proof of Uttering on Trial for Forging, 531.

d. Proof of Uttering on Trial for
Uttering, 531.

3. Proof of Handwriting, 534. (See
HANDWRITING; see also Evi-

of Gloucester. In some States some of the provisions of this statute have been enacted. In others none of the provisions have been adopted.

4. A blacksmith's forge is not "a forge or furnace for the manufacture of iron. By a blacksmith's forge iron is not manufactured, but by it, from iron itself, machines or instruments of iron are manufactured." Rogers v. Danforth, 9 N. J. Eq. 289.

4. Documents, and Secondary Evidence
Thereof, 534.

5. Of Former Proceedings, 536.
6. Of Defendant's Pecuniary Condi-
tion, 537.
[tious, 537.
7. To Show the Forged Name Ficti-
8. To Show Capacity to Injure, 537.

9. Sufficiency, 538.
10. Question for Jury, 541.
XII. Instructions, 541.
XIII. Verdict, 542.
XIV. Sentence, 543.
XV. Appeal, 543.
XVI. Punishment, 543.


I. DEFINITION.-Forgery, at common law, consists in falsely2

1. At Common Law, forgery seems more immediately confined to the falsification of records, and other instruments of a public nature, and also of private deeds and instruments under seal. By the decision in Ward's Case, 2 Ld. Raym. 1461, it was held, after solemn argument, that forgery might be in respect to any writing whatever by which another might be defrauded. People v. DeGraff, 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 203; 3 Chit. Cr. L. 760.

2. State 7. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368; Rex 7. Webb, 3 Brod. & B. 228; s. c., Russ. & Ry. 405; cited, 6 Moore, 447: Reg. v. Inder, I Den. C. C. 325; Rex v. Aickles, 1 Leach (4th ed.), 438; s. c., 2 East P. C. 968; Rex v. Story, Russ & Ry. 81; Mead v. Young, 4 T. R. 28.

Belief by Defendant that He Was Authorized to Sign.-It has been said that it does not constitute forgery where one has fair ground to believe, and does believe, that he is authorized to sign another's name to an instrument, and does so sign it without any fraudulent design. Parmelee v. People, 8 Hun (N. Y.), 623; Reg. v. Parish, S Car. & P. 94; Rex v. Forbes, 7 Car. & P. 224. However, one who signs the name of a friend or relative, trusting that he will pay the debt and will not prosecute him, is guilty of forgery. Reg. v. Beard, 8 Car. & P. 143.

Authority to Sign may be inferred from failure to repudiate the signature when information of it is first brought to the party, Reg. v. Smith, 3 Fost. & F. 504; -or from failure to repudiate previous forgeries by the same person,- Weed v. Carpenter, 4 Wend.(N.Y.) 219;--in some cases, from mere silence when called on to authorize the signing. Reg. v. Beardsall, 1 Fost. & F. 329.

Acquiescence in Previous Forgeries.Where a person for a series of years forged the name of his friend as the indorser of his notes and bills, with the knowledge of his friend, who, although judgments were obtained and executions issued against him in suit on such forged indorsements, never disavowed such acts until the person committing the forgeries had absconded and fled from just ice, it was held, in a case where indorser

was sued and suffered a default, and at tempted no defence until after the escape of the maker of the notes, that proof of this fact was admissible in evidence, and that from it the jury might imply an authority from the indorser to the maker thus to use his name. Weed v. Carpenter, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 219.

Forgery of Deed-Signing as Attorney in Fact. Defendant W. was indicted for uttering a false deed, under a statute against forgery. It was shown that the deed was signed thus: "H., by W., his attorney in fact." Held, that this did not constitute the offence charged, although W. had no authority to act for H. Where one executes an instrument purporting on its face to be executed by him as the agent of a principal to execute the same, he is not guilty of forgery; the instrument is not a false or a forged deed, within the meaning of the statute. This is no false making of the instrument, but merely a false assumption of authority.

In State v. Young, 46 N. H. 266, the court say: "The term 'falsely' has reference, not to the contents or tenor of the writing, or to the fact stated in the writing, but implies that the paper is false, not genuine, fictitious, not a true writing, without regard to the truth or falsehood of the statement it contains." In Rex v. Arscott, 6 Car. & P. 408, the defendant had indorsed, on a bill of exchange, Rec'd of R. Aikman, G. Arscott," Littledale, J., says: To forge a receipt is writing the name of the person for whom it is received. But in this case the acts done by the prisoner were the receiving for another and signing his

own name.

In Reg. v. White, 2 Car & K. 404; s. c., 2 Cox C. C. 210, a bill of exchange payable to the order of Thomas Tomlinson was indorsed by the prisoner, "Per procuration Thomas Tomlinson, Emanuel White." White had no authority whatever from Tomlinson. It was held, by a unanimous court of fifteen judges, that this was not forgery. In Heilbonn's Case, I Park. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 429, a bill of exchange had been made payable to the order of McIntosh & Co. It was indorsed by 'Alex. Heilbonn."


« PreviousContinue »