Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 750 / Act 328 of 1931
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.250 (2026)

Forgery of notes issued for debt of state or political subdivisions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.250 Forgery of notes issued for debt of state or political subdivisions.

Sec. 250.

    Forgery of notes, etc., issued for debt of state—Any person who shall falsely make, alter, forge or counterfeit any note, certificate, bond, warrant or other instrument, issued by the treasurer or other officer authorized to issue the same, of this state, or any of its political subdivisions or municipalities, with intent to injure or defraud as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 7 years.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1934, 1st Ex. Sess., Act 16, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 1934 ;-- CL 1948, 750.250

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 3 of Ch. 155 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5804; CL 1871, § 7633; How., § 9215; CL 1897, § 11661; CL 1915, § 15434; and CL 1929, § 17050.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: People v. Shears, 269 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Shears, 269 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Defendant claims he was improperly charged: he says that since the instrument involved was a state-issued ADC check, he should have been charged under MCL 750.250; MSA 28.447 and MCL 750.253; MSA 28.”
People of Michigan v. Moses Richard Emmanuel (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “This Court explained in Crews that “it is clear that by distinguishing high-and low-severity felony convictions the Legislature intended to provide sentencing courts with a mechanism for matching criminal conduct prohibited by other states [or the federal government] with…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.