P. B. JAUDON AND J. F. JAUDON, AS JAUDON BROTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR
v.
FIDELITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, 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 reversed a final judgment for a bank, holding that the plaintiffs' declaration stated a valid cause of action for damages resulting from the non-payment of a check.
No, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The declaration, even when considered with the bill of particulars, stated a cause of action and was not subject to the demurrer.
“In an action to recover damages for the non-payment of a check drawn on it, the declaration in one count alleges “that the said Fidelity & Trust Company upon the presentation of said check accepted the same,” while the other count alleged- a promise to pay checks drawn as alleged, and the other allegations are not repugnant to and do not neutralize the stated allegations.”
Describes the core allegations in the plaintiffs' declaration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued the Fidelity Bank & Trust Company for damages after the bank allegedly failed to pay a check drawn on it. The declaration alleged the …
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 Bill Of Particulars cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In an action to recover damages for the non-payment of a check drawn on it, the declaration in one count alleges “that the said Fidelity & Trust Company upon the presentation of said check accepted the same,” while the other count alleged-a promise to pay checks drawn as alleged, and the other allegations are not repugnant to and do not neutralize the stated allegations.
The hill of particulars if properly made a part of the declaration does not negative the allegations of the declaration.
A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and plaintiffs refusing to further plead, a final judgment on the demurrer was rendered for the defendant, and plaintiffs took writ of error. The declaration even considered with the bill of particulars states a cause of action and was not subject to the demurrer interposed, therefore the judgment is reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaRena Foster v. St. Johns Elec. Co., 86 Fla. 338 (Fla. 1923)…use of action; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the judgment herein be, and is hereby reversed on the authority of Wertz v. Tampa Electric Co., 78 Fla. 405, 83 South. Rep. 270; Jaudon v. Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., 81 Fla. 115, 87 South. Rep. 313; Peterson v. Daniels Co., 83 Fla. 29, 90 South. Rep. 621; Tampa & J. R. Co. v. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64 South. Rep. 437. Reversed. WniTFIELD, P. J., AND WEST AND TERRELL, J. J., COUCUr.…