A. SARIEGO
v.
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF TAMPA
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 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note. The court held that a plea of payment admits the note's execution and places the burden of proof on the defendant.
No, the plaintiff does not need to prove execution because the plea of payment admits it. Yes, an appellate court can overturn a jury verdict based on conflicting evidence.
“In a suit at law upon a promissory note where the only plea interposed to the declaration is payment, the allegations of the declaration setting forth the facts of plaintiff's case are admitted to be true by the defendant's affirmative plea and it becomes unnecessary for the plaintiff to adduce any proof -of the making, execution or endorsement of the note as alleged in the declaration.”
Establishes that a plea of payment admits the note's execution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued on a promissory note. The defendant filed only a plea of payment. The case went to a jury, which found for the plaintiff on the iss…
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 Burden Of Proof On Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
In a suit at law upon a promissory note where the only plea interposed to the declaration is payment, the allegations of the declaration setting forth the facts of plaintiff’s case are admitted to be true by the defendant’s affirmative plea and it becomes unnecessary for the plaintiff to adduce any proof -of the making, execution or endorsement of the note as alleged in the declaration. Fowler v. Industrial Acceptance Corp., 101 Fla. 259, 234 Sou. Rep. 60, 6th headnote.
The only plea in this case was a simple plea of payment, the truth of which plea was upon the defendant to establish. The case was' duly submitted and tried before a jury ‘ and the sole issue of payment presented by the pleadings was thereupon found by the jury in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.
An examination of the bill of exceptions shows that the evidence was conflicting. So there is no warrant for an appellate Court to undertake to set aside the jury’s verdict in view of the nature of the conflicts in the evidence adduced on the simple issue presented for determination at the trial. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knauer v. Levy, 115 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…; Selma Compress Co. v. Parker, 38 Ala.App. 628, 91 So. 2d 240, 241. See eases collected at 11 C.J.S. Bills and Notes § 682. . Rule 1.8(d), Fla.Rules Civ.Proc., 30 P. S.A.; 3 F.P.L. Bills and Notes, § 197. . Sariego v. International Bank of Tampa, 119 Fla. 106, 160 So. 876; Click v. Dowd, 102 Fla. 336, 135 So. 840; cf. Parsons v. Ramsey, 53 Fla. 1055, 43 So. 503; Drake Lumber Co. v. Semple, 100 Fla. 1757, 130 So. 577, 581, 75 A.L.R. 687.…
Authorities Cited
- Fowler v. Indus. Acceptance Corp., 101 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1931)