State v. McGinnis

• Decision Date: 14 June 1887
• Parties: STATE v. MCGINNIS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

71 Iowa 685

33 N.W. 338

STATE

v.MCGINNIS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 14, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Webster county.

Indictment charging that the defendant, by false pretense, obtained the signature of another person to a written instrument. Verdict, guilty; judgment. The defendant appeals.J. F. Duncomb, for appellant.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SEEVERS, J.

The material portion of the indictment is as follows: That the defendant and one Smith “feloniously, designedly, by false pretense, and with intent to defraud, did falsely represent, pretend, and state to one Mathias Kammers that the said Patrick McGinnis was the owner of a certain piece of land,” which he offered to sell said Kammers for a named price, and which offer was accepted; “and therefore said Patrick McGinnis and Frank Smith designedly, and by false pretense, and with intent to defraud said Mathias Kammers, did falsely represent and pretend that a certain instrument in writing, then and there exhibited to said Kammers, to-wit, a chattel mortgage from Mathias Kammers to Patrick McGinnis, for seven hundred dollars, upon ‘certain property, describing it,’ was a contract to purchase said land, * * * and was an agreement to sell said land on the part of Patrick McGinnis, * * * and the said Kammers then and there believed said representation to be true, and was deceived thereby, and was enticed by reason of said false pretenses to sign said written instruments, and then and there did sign the same.”

It will be observed that the indictment does not charge that the mortgage was delivered, but that the charge is that the signature of Kammers was obtained thereto, and counsel for the defendant insist that no crime known to the law is charged. It is provided by statute as follows: “If any person designedly, and by false pretense, or by any privy or false token, and with intent to defraud, obtain from another money, goods, or other property, or so obtain the signature of any person to any written instrument the false making of which would be punished as forgery, he shall be punished. * * *” Code, § 4073.

The question to be determined is whether, under the statute, it is essential, in order to constitute the crime, that there should be a delivery of the written instrument to which the signature was obtained by false pretense, with intent to defraud. The attorney general concedes that if “money, goods, or property is so obtained” that there must be a delivery, and...