{ "id": 5176367, "name": "E. S. Karoly Electrical Construction Company v. Globe Savings Bank", "name_abbreviation": "E. S. Karoly Electrical Construction Co. v. Globe Savings Bank", "decision_date": "1896-04-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "225", "last_page": "231", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 Ill. App. 225" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "160 Ill. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3130043 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/160/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill. App. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 865130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/18/0501-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 488, "char_count": 10497, "ocr_confidence": 0.53, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2463699571633072e-07, "percentile": 0.609085703452209 }, "sha256": "a4fb0ecd8d8e19e8ac06ec9da5689f4a3e7906bbf36a2bf684ba5a049f6c3abe", "simhash": "1:30cfab82c652a63a", "word_count": 1847 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "E. S. Karoly Electrical Construction Company v. Globe Savings Bank." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIt appears that these checks were made payable to a man who called himself, and was believed by the maker of the checks to be, Gr. Budelius. This man, who was dealt with as, and who called himself, Gr. Budelius, has never since been seen.\nThere is nothing to show that this man did not indorse the checks; no evidence that the name G. Budelius was written by any other person. In brief, no showing that his name was forged.\nThe fact that a man named G. Budelius has been found who testifies that the signatures on the backs of the checks are not his, does not establish that the signatures are not those of the man to whose order the checks were made payable; more especially when it is admitted that the witnesss G. Budelius, is not the person with whom the maker of the checks dealt.\nNeither does the fact that appellant, who introduced to Tolman the man calling himself \u201c G. Budelius,\u201d afterward told Tolman that he had been mistaken and that the name of the man was \u201c Herman Fred \u201d prove the indorsements \u201c G. Budelius \u201dto have been forgeries.\nIf Herman Fred had made his promissory note by the name of G-. Eudelius, such note would have bound him. So too, if Herman Fred, passing himself off as bearing the name of G. Eudelius, received checks intended for him, Herman Fred, payable to the order of G. Eudelius, his indorsements thereon of his assumed name bound him, and there being no intent to defraud and no one being defrauded, would not be a forgery. Bishop on Grim. Law, Yol. 2, Sec. 596; Begina v. Hodgson, 36 L. & Eq. 626.\nOn the other hand, if the witness, G. Eudelius, had indorsed his name thereon with intent to defraud and had thus defrauded the person for whom the checks were intended and belonged, he, G. Eudelius, would have been guilty of forgery. Bishop on Criminal Law, Sec. 584.\nEvery John Smith can not lawfully indorse checks payable to a particular J ohn Smith.\nThe question in the case at bar was not strictly whether a forgery had been committed, but whether the name G. 'Eudelius had been indorsed upon the checks by the person to whose order by that name the checks were made. Hoge v. First Nat\u2019l Bank, 18 Ill. App. 501; Shearer v. Pacific Exp. Co., 43 Ill. App. 601; Same, 160 Ill. 215.\nUpon this the burden was upon appellee to show that the checks had not been so indorsed. Appellee alleged that it had accepted the checks upon a forged indorsement. This it did not prove.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman" }, { "text": "Mr. P. J. Gary,\non petition fob beheabing.\nThe petition misses the point decided. Karoly went with somebody (Fulano, as the Spaniards say) to Tolman and induced Tolman to discount notes made by the appellant, of which Karoly was president, and with Karoly\u2019s approval Tolman gave to this Fulano checks. This Fulano, who alone had any right to the checks, indorsed them in the name Avhich\u2014whether true or false makes no difference\u2014die bore in that transaction. The real Eudelius\u2014if there be but one \u2014real one\u2014had no interest in the business, no concern with it.\nKaroly might permit the proceeds of the discount he procured to go where he pleased, and placing them in the possession and control of this Fulano as his own, by any name then truly or falsely borne by him, made his indorsement\u2014 not a forgery\u2014but a genuine indorsement by the right man.\nIf Tolman has canceled or returned the notes made by the appellant, then no injustice is done by this judgment; but the record is silent on that point. In the absence of all history of the notes, no reason appeared why a transaction, concurred in by all parties interested, should be ripped up upon an abstract conjecture that Karoly carried the proceeds of a discount of the paper of his company by one banker, to the credit of his company in. another, by means of a harmless fiction.", "type": "rehearing", "author": "Mr. P. J. Gary," } ], "attorneys": [ "Omohundro & Woodward and David J. Wile, attorneys for appellant.", "Edwin C. Crawford, attorney for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "E. S. Karoly Electrical Construction Company v. Globe Savings Bank.\n1. Forgery\u2014Must be an Intention to Defraud.\u2014If a person makes his note by an assumed name, such note will bind him; so too, if, passing himself as bearing the assumed name, he receives checks intended for him but payable to the order of the assumed name, his indorsement thereon of his assumed name will bind him, and if there is no intent to defraud and no one is defrauded, there is no forgery in the transaction.\n2. Same\u2014Fictitious Names\u2014Fraudulent Intent.\u2014It is. only where the false or fictitious name is assumed for the purpose of fraud that forgery can be predicated of the act.\nAssumpsit, on checks. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 27, 1896.\nStatement of the Cask\nAppellant having received two checks payable to the order of G-. Rudelius, and apparently indorsed by him, deposited them with appellee and received credit for the amount thereof. The Metropolitan National Bank, on which the checks were drawn, paid the sum they called for to appellee, which last mentioned bank, upon being told that the indorsements \u201c G. Rudelius \u201d were forgeries, repaid the Metropolitan Bank; whereupon appellee brought suit against its depositor, appellant, and recovered a judgment for the amount represented by the two checks, $936.18.\nThe evidence upon the trial was as follows:\nDaniel H. Tolman testified\u201c I am a dealer in commercial paper. Am acquainted with the defendant company, also with E. S. Karoly, its president. 1 have examined the two checks handed me by attorney for plaintiff, and recognize them as checks drawn by me on the Metropolitan National Bank in Chicago.\u201d\nChecks with their indorsements offered in evidence, viz : No. 80. Chicago, April 15, 1895.\nThe Metropolitan National Bank of Chicago:\nPay to the order of G. Rudelius, four hundred and forty-five dollars ($445). D. H. Tolman.\n(On face of same:) Accepted. Payable through Chicago Clearing House, April 15, 1895.\nMetropolitan National Bank, per Wegner.\n(Indorsement on back:) G. Rudelius, E. S. Karoly.\nElectrical Construction Co., by E. S. Karoly.\nGlobe Savings bank : Paid April 16,1895.\nPay through Chicago Clearing House, to North-Western National Bank.\nNo. 108. Chicago, April 20, 1895.\nThe Metropolitan National Bank of Chicago :\nPay to the order of G. Rudelius, four hundred and eighty dollars ($480). D. H. Tolman.\n(On face of same :) Accepted. Payable through Chicago Clearing House, April 20,1895.\nMetropolitan National Bank, per Wegner.\n(Indorsements on back:) E. Rudelius, E. S. Karoly.\nElectrical Construction Co., by E. S. Karoly.\nGlobe Savings Bank: Paid April 23, 1895.\nPay through Chicago Clearing House, to North-Western National Bank.\nAnd thereupon the witness Tolman further testified:\nI delivered these checks as the proceeds of two notes, which I have discounted at the request of the man to whom I delivered the checks. The checks were delivered by me on the day of their respective dates. The money on the checks was afterward refunded to me by the Metropolitan National Bank, through whom I learned the indorsement,\n\u201c G. Rudelius,\u201d was a forgery. Upon being so informed, I went to a man by the name of G. Rudelius, whose place of business is 172 South Clark street, in this city. I there saw a man who answered to the name of G. Rudelius. As soon as I saw him I knew he was not the man with whom I had had my dealings. I said to the man, \u201cAre you G. Rudelius % \u201d He said \u201cYes.\u201d I then said to him, \u201cWell, you are not the man I have been doing business with.\u201d I showed him the two checks which have been offered in evidence; he said that the indorsement \u201c G. Rudelius \u201d on each of the checks was not his signature; he agreed to, and did make an affidavit to that effect.\nAfter Mr. Rudelius had pronounced the indorsements on \u2022 the checks forgeries, I had an interview with E. S. Karoly, the president of the defendant company, and he told me that when he came to me with the man who claimed to be G. Rudelius, and to whom I gave the checks, he, Karoly, thought that the man\u2019s name was really G. Rudelius, but he has since learned that his name was not G. Rudelius, but that he was a man known as \u201c Herman Fred.\u201d\nCross-examination:\nThe notes for the proceeds of which these checks were given, were notes of the defendant, E. S. Karoly Electrical Construction Company. The man to whom I gave the checks called himself G. Rudelius. I dealt with him by that name; the same man intrdouced Hr. Karoly to me, as president of the defendant company. Mr. Karoly, in the presence of this same man, and at my request, furnished me a written statement as to the financial condition of the defendant company. When this man who called himself G. Rudelius came in and said to me, \u201c Mr. Tolman, this is Mr. Karoly,\u201d I said, \u201c O, yes, I know Mr. Karoly, he formerly put the electrical works into my bank.\u201d\nG. Rudelius testified : \u201c My name is G. Rudelius, and my place of business is 172 South Clark street, in this city. I have examined the indorsement, \u2018 G. Rudelius \u2019 on the back of each of the checks introduced in evidence. It is not my signature. I first saw these checks in the possession of Mr. Daniel H. Tolman, who showed them to me. After he called on me, E. S. Karoly also called at my place of business, and talked with me about this matter, and I told him the same thing.\nI am acquainted with one Herman Fred; he at one time had desk room in my office.\u201d\nWilbur B. Ervin testified: \u201cThe proceeds of the first check were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, April 15, 1895; the proceeds of the second check were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant April 22,1895.\u201d\nThe plaintiff\u2019s counsel then offered in evidence two deposit slips, reading respectively as follows :\nGlobe Savings Bank,\nDearborn and Jackson streets.\nCredit to the account of E. S. Karoly, Electrical Construction Co.\n8480.\nChicago, 4-22-1895.\nThese slips were deposited in our bank by the defendant, together with the checks that are in evidence.\nOn July 3, 1895, we were notified by the Metropolitan National Bank, that the indorsement of the name Gr. Budelius on the checks were forgeries, and we thereupon repaid the Metropolitan National Bank by our check.\u201d\nWitness resumes: \u201c The defendant has never reimbursed us, and now owes the plaintiff the sum of $936.18, being the sum of the checks and interest at five per cent from July 5, 1895.\nOmohundro & Woodward and David J. Wile, attorneys for appellant.\nEdwin C. Crawford, attorney for appellee." }, "file_name": "0225-01", "first_page_order": 223, "last_page_order": 229 }