is an intent to defraud. State v. Rounsaville, 701 S.W.2d 817, 819-20 (Tenn.1985). The fact that a signature or endorsement is unauthorized does not necessarily establish it as a forgery unless there is also evidence of an intent to defraud. 1A Larry Lawrence, Uniform Commercial Code § 1-201:745, at 122 (3d ed.1996). Mr. Curry’s endorsement of the settlement check does not constitute a forgery for two reasons. First, the endorsement does not purport to be the act of Union Central; rather, it purports to be the act of “EIC III” [Mr. Curry] as an agent of Union Central. The fact that the endorsement reflects that Mr. Curry was acting as an agent for a disclosed principle prevents the endorsement from being a forgery. Mallory v. State, 179 Tenn. 617, 624, 168 S.W.2d 787, 789 (1943) (<HOLDING>). Second, this record lacks any evidence that
holding that debts for a guardian ad litem and a psychologist were nondischargeable under  523a5 because the emphasis is to be placed on the determination of whether a debt is in the nature of support rather than on the identity of the payee holding it is settled that in construing an endorsement to an insurance policy the endorsement and the policy must be read together and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement holding that an insured was not entitled to recover through their endorsement coverage where the policy actually required the insureds to repair rebuild or replace their  covered property before the endorsement would be triggered recognizing as a matter of federal law that an action to redress injuries to a corporation cannot be maintained by a shareholder in his own name but must be brought in the name of the corporation holding that the endorsement labor advocate by pt mallory did not purport to be counterfeit of the name of the payee of the check