Notice Of Dishonor

43 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Taylor v. Am. Nat'l Bank of Pensacola
  63 Fla. 631· Fla.· 1912-01-01 ·cited 71×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an order overruling the Taylors' demurrer in a mortgage dispute, holding that a bank that acquired a $2,250 promissory note and accompanying mortgage took them as a holder in due course despite the note's principal being indivisible and a separa
• Spann v. Baltzell
  1 Fla. 301· Fla.· 1847-01-01 ·cited 44×
  In this bill of exchange dispute, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against endorser Richard Spann, holding that an oral agreement to accept insolvent bank notes instead of money constituted valid substituted consideration, but that such tender required physical produ
• Webster v. Barnett
  17 Fla. 272· Fla.· 1879-06-01 ·cited 28×
  Norman Webster appeals a judgment for $523.33 entered against him in a breach of promissory note action. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment because the trial court improperly maintained a joint action against both the note's maker (Blew) and endorser (Webster), whose
• Grant Cnty. Deposit Bank v. McCAMPBELL
  194 F.2d 469· 6th Cir.· 1952-02-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction existed because a party who was initially indispensable but disclaimed interest and was dismissed became an unnecessary party, allowing the court to proceed on the merits.
• Pro-Fab, Inc. v. Vipa, Inc.
  772 F.2d 847· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 15×
  The court held that Pro-Fab failed to prove fraud and that the bank did not waive defects by prior payments, but remanded the issue of wrongful dishonor due to potentially untimely notice.
• W. AIR & Refrigeration, Inc. v. Metro Bank OF Dallas
  599 F.2d 83· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 14×
  A payor bank is not liable under UCC § 4.302 for failing to return a check by its midnight deadline if the check was left with the bank for collection upon availability of funds, as this constitutes an agreement varying the deadline and not a presentment for payment.
• Robinson v. Aird
  43 Fla. 30· Fla.· 1901-01-01 ·cited 14×
  A receiver may collect on promissory notes transferred to him upon appointment, but credits for deposits made before insolvency must be allowed, and evidence of legitimate credit arrangements made before insolvency should be submitted to the jury rather than excluded.
• Baumeister v. Kuntz
  53 Fla. 340· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 12×
  In this 1907 Florida case, the court affirmed judgment against an endorser of promissory notes who endorsed in blank before delivery to give credit to the corporate maker. The court held that an endorser's waiver of presentment may be implied from the circumstances and conduct of
• Tepper v. Citizens Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  448 So. 2d 1138· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The statute of limitations for wrongful dishonor of a check against the drawer begins to run on the date of presentment and dishonor, not the date of issuance.
• Cap. City First Nat'l Bank v. Lewis State Bank
  341 So. 2d 1025· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-01-19 ·cited 8×
  Capital City deposited checks drawn on uncollected funds to its accounts, sending them through a local clearinghouse to Lewis State Bank for collection and presentation to Florida State Bank. The central issue was whether presentment to Florida State occurred when Lewis received
• Marion and Mary A. S. Sanderson v. Sanderson's Administrators
  20 Fla. 292· Fla.· 1883-06-01 ·cited 8×
  This is a second appeal in a complex estate administration case involving Sanderson's widow and child against the estate administrator. The court affirmed most of the lower court's decisions regarding the administrator's accounting, credits, and allowances, but reversed certain c
• Lines v. Smith
  4 Fla. 47· Fla.· 1851-01-01 ·cited 8×
  This case addresses whether a maker of a promissory note can defend against payment by asserting a failure of consideration when the note was given for a slave with defective title, and whether an existing debt of a third party constitutes valid consideration for a promise to pay
• Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. OF N.C. v. Cont'l Bank N.A.
  918 F.2d 1312· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the letters of credit required a joint draw by both beneficiaries and that Continental Bank did not wrongfully dishonor the draws.
• Joseph Szabo in Bankr. of Bell Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Vinton Motors, Inc.
  630 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a cash seller's right to reclaim goods upon dishonor of the buyer's check is limited to a ten-day period following the buyer's receipt of the goods, as indicated by UCC Comment 3 to section 2-507.
• VAN Valkenberg v. Chris Craft Indus., Inc.
  252 So. 2d 280· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-07-26 ·cited 6×
  Van Valkenberg appeals a summary judgment against him as a guarantor of a promissory note. The trial court improperly struck his affirmative defenses without allowing him to present evidence, and the appellate court reverses, holding that motions to strike should not be granted w
• Grant Cnty. Deposit Bank v. Greene
  200 F.2d 835· 6th Cir.· 1952-12-16 ·cited 6×
  A collecting bank is liable for losses resulting from its failure to exercise ordinary care in handling drafts, including misrepresenting the drawee's solvency and failing to follow collection instructions.
• Burton v. McCaskill
  79 Fla. 173· Fla.· 1920-02-27 ·cited 6×
  Burton and Rhyne, as endorsers of a promissory note issued by Marianna Manufacturing Company, were sued by McCaskill for payment after the maker failed to pay. The court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the defendants had impliedly waive
• FR. Winkler KG v. Stoller
  839 F.2d 1002· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule barred Stoller's defense that his guarantee was a mere formality and would never be enforced, and that his 'per aval' signature constituted a personal guarantee waiving notice of dishonor.
• Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. v. Prospect Nat'l Bank OF Peoria
  708 F.2d 290· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of specific performance but modified the judgment to allow the buyers to recover their $20,000 deposit, finding that forfeiture of the deposit would shock the judicial conscience.
• Whitaker v. Morrison
  1 Fla. 25· Fla.· 1846-01-01 ·cited 4×
  In this assumpsit action on a promissory note, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against an endorser for lack of sufficient proof of notice of dishonor. The court held that notice of non-payment must be proved with precision and positive evidence, not mere inference o
• Biermann v. Cook
  619 So. 2d 1029· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-06-04 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Second District Court of Appeal dismissed appellant Biermann's appeal as frivolous and brought in bad faith, imposing sanctions including attorney's fees. Biermann had repeatedly attempted to relitigate a quiet title case that had been resolved against him in 1990, fi
• First Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Brandon State Bank
  377 So. 2d 990· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-11-14 ·cited 3×
  First National Bank of Florida received a $48,000 check for collection but experienced a computer breakdown delaying its return of the dishonored check. The court reversed summary judgment for Brandon State Bank, holding that First National's provisional settlement was properly r
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Lake Country Nat'l Bank
  873 F.2d 79· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that equivocal telephone inquiries about a check's status did not constitute sufficient notice of dishonor under Regulation J, and the paying bank was liable for losses incurred by the depositary bank due to this failure.
• Chahram Pahlavi v. Petros Palandjian
  809 F.2d 938· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Palandjian's counterclaims were time-barred and not compulsory, and that Pahlavi was entitled to summary judgment on his claim regarding the dishonored check, with pre-judgment interest awarded from the date of dishonor.
• Gathercrest Ltd. v. First Am. Bank & Tr.
  649 F. Supp. 106· M.D. Fla.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parties agreed, through their conduct and banking customs, that the Uniform Rules of Collection (URC) would govern their duties regarding the first bill of exchange, and that the bills of exchange qualified as documentary drafts under the UCC.
• Gillmor v. Indianapolis GAS Co.
  136 F.2d 925· 7th Cir.· 1943-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bondholders were bound by the settlement plan approved by a majority of bondholders because the bonds contained language putting them on notice of the mortgage deed's conditions, and the plaintiffs acquired their bonds after default and with notice.
• Worley v. Johnson
  60 Fla. 294· Fla.· 1910-06-01 ·cited 2×
  This case concerns whether an endorser of a promissory note waived their right to presentment for payment and notice of dishonor. The court held that the endorser's statements did not constitute a clear waiver, and thus, the holder's failure to present the note and provide notice
• Marks v. Boone
  24 Fla. 177· Fla.· 1888-01-01 ·cited 2×
  This case concerns whether an endorser of a promissory note received timely notice of the maker's dishonor. The court reversed the lower court's verdict, finding that the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove that the endorser was properly notified within the legally requ
• Pitts v. Augustus W. Jones
  9 Fla. 519· Fla.· 1861-01-01 ·cited 2×
  In this bills of exchange case, the Florida Supreme Court held that a drawer who acts as an agent for the drawee is entitled to notice of dishonor even if the drawer has no funds in the drawee's hands at the time of drawing, provided the drawer had a right to expect the bill woul
• First Union Nat'l Bank v. First Fla. Bank, N.A.
  616 So. 2d 1168· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-04-16
  A payor bank is strictly accountable for a dishonored check if notice of dishonor or return of the item is not made before the statutory midnight deadline.
• First Am. Sav. v. M & I Bank of Menomonee Falls Appeal of First Am. Sav.
  865 F.2d 561· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-09
  A paying bank's failure to provide timely notice of dishonor under Regulation J makes it liable for the depositary bank's losses, and this liability is not defeated by a forged endorsement if the paying bank did not pay or accept the check.
• Lufthansa German Airlines v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  652 F.2d 835· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-03
  The court held that telephonic notice of dishonor to a bank's centralized processing center, which lacked customer identification, did not trigger the bank's duty to notify the customer.
• Midrose Foods, Inc. v. Roman
  454 F.2d 1159· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-04
  The court held that the appellants' concession regarding the sole issue below waived their argument about lack of notice of dishonor. It also held that interest on the notes should accrue from their respective due dates, not the execution date.
• Gelman v. Pub. Nat'l Bank
  377 F.2d 166· D.C. Cir.· 1967-03-31
  A provision in a negotiable instrument that allows for acceleration of the due date does not, without clear and unambiguous language, constitute a waiver of the requirement to provide notice of dishonor to an indorser.
• Roepke v. Kaenel
  182 So. 2d 651· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-12-21
  Victor Roepke endorsed a promissory note in blank, making himself an unqualified endorser liable to the holders, John and Louise Kaenel. The court affirmed summary judgment against Roepke, holding that parol evidence cannot alter the legal status of an endorser under Florida's ne
• Keresey v. NEW Milford Tractor Corp.
  234 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1956-06-18
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions were proper and that the defendant La Grotta's requested instructions were correctly refused. The jury's verdict, which rejected La Grotta's defenses, was supported by the evidence.
• Tirado v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of N.Y.
  142 F.2d 894· 1st Cir.· 1944-04-04
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment.
• Wittich v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola
  20 Fla. 843· Fla.· 1884-06-01
  This case examines whether a bank is liable for damages when it has a customer's check protested for non-payment, even if the customer had sufficient funds at the time of presentment. The court held that while protesting a check may be unnecessary for inland bills, it is not inhe
• Joseph v. Salomon
  19 Fla. 623· Fla.· 1883-01-01
  In this 1883 case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the defendant in a bill of exchange dispute, holding that a drawer of a foreign bill is entitled to notice of dishonor when he had a reasonable expectation that the bill would be honored, even absent protest
• Josiah Q. Guild v. Goldsmith
  9 Fla. 212· Fla.· 1860-01-01
  This case concerns whether an endorser of an overdue promissory note is entitled to notice of non-payment, similar to a bill drawn at sight. The court held that such notice is indeed required for the endorser to be liable.