Seay v. State

• Citation: 108 So. 620,21 Ala.App. 339
• Decision Date: 24 November 1925
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 139
• Parties: SEAY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

108 So. 620

21 Ala.App. 339

SEAY v. STATE.

4 Div. 139

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 24, 1925

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge.

Henry N. Seay was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Seay v. State, 108 So 622.

Sollie & Sollie, of Ozark, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

The case as made by the state's evidence discloses: Folmar &amp Sons were the general agents of a life insurance company and had their place of business at Troy, Pike county. They made all collections of premiums for policies issued and delivered, and became liable to the company for its part of premiums upon policies delivered. Defendant lived in Barbour county, and was a subagent of Folmar & Sons, and under contract with them to solicit insurance and to take applications therefor, to be sent to Folmar & Sons, who in turn forwarded same to the company and procured the issuance of the policies called for in application. These policies when returned, were turned over to defendant for delivery to the insured, at which time payment of the first premium was made. Of this first premium defendant was entitled to 60 per cent. This first premium was rarely paid in money, and defendant was allowed to take notes therefor, payable to Folmar & Sons, the payment being guaranteed in each instance by defendant. These notes were held by Folmar & Sons as collateral security for such advances in money as was made to defendant and also to secure defendant's guarantee on all notes taken by him. During the period of this contract defendant delivered many policies, and for same secured and delivered notes payable to Folmar & Sons, to be held as aforesaid, 60 per cent. of which when collected to be credited to the account of defendant against his indebtedness. The account and dealings between the parties covered many items and a considerable period of time. Under the foregoing arrangement a policy of insurance on the life of R.V. Fuqua was issued and turned over to defendant to be by him delivered and collected for. Shortly thereafter there was delivered to Folmar & Sons a note and mortgage, purporting to have been signed by R.V. Fuqua and witnessed by defendant, for the amount of the first premium, to wit, $147, which note and mortgage went into the account of defendant with Folmar & Sons, as a basis for further advances to be made by Folmar & Sons to defendant, on the business written and delivered. The policy for which this note and mortgage was given was delivered to defendant and has never been returned to Folmar & Sons. Upon demand being made on Fuqua for payment of the note and mortgage, he denied its execution and claimed that his name had been forged thereto.

There was much testimony and many exceptions with reference to how the note and mortgage was delivered to Folmar & Sons, whether by mail or otherwise. That the note and mortgage was delivered to Folmar & Sons, accompanied by a letter written by defendant and referring to this particular note and mortgage, is not disputed, and that upon its receipt Folmar &amp Sons accepted it as genuine and dealt with it in defendant's account, as such. In this evidence was sought to be raised the question of venue, i.e., that the offense of uttering, charged in the second count of the indictment,...