#### Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank, Defendant in Error, v. National Surety Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,721.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Z. Uhlie, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 14, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the Mid-City. Trust & Savings Bank, a corporation, plaintiff, against the National Surety Company, a corporation, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover on a bond whereby defendant agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained “by reason of any act of * * * forgery” by any employee covered by the bond. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

The loss sought to be recovered was occasioned *7by four checks forged by an employee covered by the bond, all of which were stipulated to have been made during employment, although two were not presented and paid until later.

Charles H. Burras, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Stipulations, § 19 * —what is effect of. In an action on a bond whereby defendant, a surety company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained “by reason of any act of * * * forgery” on the part of any employee covered by the bond, where two or four forged checks causing the loss sought to be recovered for were not presented and paid until after the employment ended, the dates of the checks are immaterial where it is stipulated that all were made during employment.

2. Forgery, § 2*—what constitutes. In an action on a bond where defendant, a surety company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained “by reason of any act of * * * forgery” on the part of any employee covered by the bond, checks made during employment but not presented and paid until after the employment ceases are forgeries within the meaning of the bond, if the checks are false writings, apparently capable of defrauding, and manifestly made with intent to defraud, and the act of uttering is unnecessary.

3. Indemnity, § 24*—when forged checks are admissible in evidence. In an action on a bond whereby defendant, a surety company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained “by reason of any act of * * * forgery” on the part of any employee covered by the bond, where the loss sought to be recovered for was caused by forged checks, two of which were not presented and paid until after the termination of the employment, such checks are rendered competent by a stipulation that they were made during employment, coupled with undeniable evidence of forgery.

4. Indemnity, § 24*—when evidence sufficient to sustain judgment for plaintiff. In an action on a bond whereby defendant, a surety *8company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained “by reason of any act of * . * * forgery” on the part of any employee covered by the bond, where the loss was caused by forged cheeky, evidence held sufficient to sustain a judgment for plaintiff.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*7Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.