Edge v. United States, 17691.

Citation270 F.2d 837
Decision Date25 September 1959
Docket NumberNo. 17691.,17691.
PartiesHarold Franklin EDGE, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

John C. Tyler, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Charles D. Read, Jr., Acting U. S. Atty., E. Ralph Ivey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

WISDOM, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was convicted of causing "a falsely made and forged security" to be transported in interstate commerce, knowing the instrument to have been falsely made and forged, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314.1 He received a sentence of eighteen months. We affirm.

Harold Franklin Edge, Jr., the appellant, registered in the Hotel Georgian Terrace, in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 15, 1958, under the fictitious name of "R. E. Spaine". He had stayed at the same hotel within a month before this and had registered under the same name of "R. E. Spaine". On September 16, 1958, Edge checked out of the hotel. He gave the manager a check for $75 to pay his hotel bill of $61 and received the balance in cash. The check was made payable to the Hotel Georgian Terrace, drawn on the Munsey Trust Co. in Washington, D. C., and signed "R. E. Spaine". There was no account in the name of R. E. Spaine in the Munsey Trust Co. in Washington, D. C. The check was transported in interstate commerce from Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington, D. C.

The only question before this Court is whether, under the undisputed facts — the defendant did not testify — the signing of a fictitious name to a check constitutes the instrument a "falsely made or forged * * * security" within the meaning of Section 2314 of Title 18 United States Code.

Forgery is not defined in the statute. Forgery is generally defined as "the false making or materially altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing, which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy, or the foundation of legal liability". 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 1, quoted in Hubsch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 820, 823. It has been held that "forged" and "falsely made" as used in the statute are "homogeneous, partaking of each other * * * synonymously construed to describe a spurious or fictitious making as distinguished from a false or fraudulent statement". Marteney v. United States, 10 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 760, 763.

In Hubsch this Court stated negatively:

"We do not hold that if a person assumes a fictitious name as an alias, and it neither appears that the name assumed was a factor in procuring credit upon the instrument signed with the fictitious name nor that the alias was previously assumed for a dishonest purpose, the signing of the alias or assumed name would be a forgery." 256 F.2d at pages 823-824.

We went on to lay down the positive rule controlling there and here:

"However, where a person not only takes an assumed name but uses that name to designate a fictional person with characteristics, personality and a semblance of identity, the use of the fictitious name as an instrument of fraud in the impersonation of the fictional person is as much a forgery as though the fictional character was real." 256 F.2d at page 824.

The evidence shows, within the positive rule set forth in Hubsch, that Edge, with intent to defraud, created a fictional personality under the name of "R. E. Spaine". The check was cashed after Edge's second stay at the hotel. On both occasions when Edge was at the hotel he spoke with the manager, Mr. Holladay, representing that he was "R. E. Spaine" of Washington, D. C. Edge told Mr. Holladay that he (R. E. Spaine) had been in Florida with his children and had spent some time at Daytona...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Hall v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 8, 1967
    ...of Weinstein the Mason the check was accepted. If such be the fact then, we conclude, there had been a forgery." Ibid. Edge v. United States, 270 F.2d 837 (5th Cir. 1959), is said to be an extension of the view laid down in Hubsch. In that case, the defendant registered in a Georgia hotel u......
  • U.S. v. Crim, 75--1117
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 29, 1976
    ...use of a fictitious name falsely made gives rise to a 'forgery' when employed, as here, with the intent to defraud. Edge v. United States, 270 F.2d 837 (5th Cir. 1959), Hubsch v. United States, 256 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1958). See also Stinson v. United States, 316 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1963). Th......
  • United States v. Green, 66 Cr. 504.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 11, 1966
    ...244 F.Supp. 166 (E.D. Tenn.1965); United States v. First Nat. City Bank, 235 F.Supp. 894, 897 (S.D. N.Y.1964). 4 Edge v. United States, 270 F.2d 837 (5th Cir. 1959); Cunningham v. United States, 272 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1959); United States v. Bales, 244 F.Supp. 166 5 United States v. Bales, ......
  • Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Company
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 30, 1959
    ......v. . PIONEER BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Appellee. . No. 17540. . United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. . September 30, 1959. 270 F.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT