J. R. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FOURTH NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that a defendant's pleas alleging a joint endorsement agreement among note endorsers did not constitute a valid defense. The court found the pleas insufficient because they did not allege the payee's knowledge or participation in the alleged agreement.
No, the pleas did not set up a valid defense. The court held that the pleas were insufficient because they failed to aver that the payee of the notes was a party to the alleged agreement or that the payee knew of the endorsers' intent to be jointly bound.
“Applying the principle that every pleading is to be most strongly construed against the pleader, we are of the opinion that there was no error in this ruling.”
This quote explains the court's approach to interpreting the defendant's pleas.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Fourth National Bank of Jacksonville sued J. R. Williams to recover on two promissory notes made by the Sumter Lumber Company and endorsed by Will…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
This is an action brought in the Circuit Court of Duval County by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error to recover an amount alleged to be due upon two certain promissory notes in writing made by the Sumter Lumber Company, payable to the Fourth National Bank of Jacksonville, defendant in error. The notes were endorsed by the plaintiff in error J. R. Williams, G. A. McLeod and B. W. Blount. The action is against Williams alone. It is similar in all its essential features to the case of Williams v. Peninsular Gro cery Company, 73 Fla. 937, 75 South. Rep. 517, decided by this court since the writ of error iñ the instant case was sued out. The defendant in each case was the same, he was represented in each case by the same able counsel, and no question different in principle from that presented in the former case is presented in this case.
Upon the oral argument, notwithstanding the opinion in the Peninsular Grocery Co. case, it was insisted by counsel that the pleas of the defendant alleging that by agreement of the endorsers of the notes sued on their endorsement was to be their joint obligation, and that they wrote their names upon the notes with the intent that it should be a joint endorsement by them, set up a good defense to the action and that the Circuit Judge erred in sustaining demurrers to such pleas.
Applying the principle that every pleading is to be most strongly construed against the pleader, we are of the opinion that there was no error in this ruling. It is not averred in the pleas that the payee of such notes, the defendant in error, was a party to such alleged agreement, nor is it clearly averred that it knew of the purpose and intent of'the endorsers to be jointly bound by this endorsement.
No useful purpose would be accomplished in discussing again the various questions presented.
'The judgment will be affirmed upon authority of the case of Williams v. Peninsular Grocery Co., supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C, J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klemtner v. Peters, 90 Fla. 448 (Fla. 1925)…tice is not involved. On the theory that a litigant has stated his case or defense as strongly as the facts and circumstances will permit, pleadings are construed most strongly against the pleader. Williams Ar. Fourth National Bank of Jacksonville, 74 Fla. 383, 77 South. Rep. 106; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Peters, 72 Fla. 311, 73 South. Rep. 151; Kirton v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 57 Fla. 79, 49 South. Rep. 1024. The declaration does not contain an allegation that plaintiffs’ co-partnership acquire…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Peninsular Grocery Co., 73 Fla. 937 (Fla. 1917)