Opinion ID: 2049434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In re Stout CONTROLLING.

Text: In our opinion this case is controlled by In re Stout, 371 Mich 438; 124 NW2d 277 (1963). Petitioner Stout brought habeas corpus to contest his commitment as incompetent to stand trial for a felony. He had been charged with the felony of forgery and he claimed that his signing his own name as a company representative on the back of a draft without authority to do so was not a forgery and therefore not a felony. These facts are substantially similar to the instant case. This Court in Stout, relying on People v Marion, 29 Mich 31, 35 (1874) found forgery includes any act which fraudulently makes an instrument `purport to be what it is not.' 371 Mich 438, 441, and that therefore Stout was properly charged with a felony. We reaffirm that definition.