Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law

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

• Valentine v. Hayes
  102 Fla. 157· Fla.· 1931-06-24 ·cited 43×
  This case addresses whether an indorser of a negotiable promissory note can defend against liability by proving the indorsement was made without consideration or as a gift. The Florida Supreme Court held that under the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, an indorser's statutory l
• Fla. Nat. Bank Tr. Co. v. Brown
  47 So. 2d 748· Fla.· 1949-07-29 ·cited 37×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision denying foreclosure on a mortgage given by a mother to her daughter for past services rendered. The court held that services rendered without a pre-existing agreement for compensation do not constitute valuable considerati
• Betz v. Bank OF Miami Beach
  95 So. 2d 891· Fla.· 1957-06-12 ·cited 33×
  Howard Betz signed promissory notes below the corporate name "Corvette of Miami, Inc." without any indication that he signed in a representative capacity. The Florida Supreme Court held that Betz is personally liable as a maker of the notes as a matter of law under the Uniform Ne
• Edgerly v. Schuyler
  113 So. 2d 737· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-06-26 ·cited 26×
  Depositors appeal a summary judgment dismissing their action against their bank for wrongfully paying a check bearing a forged endorsement. The court reverses, holding that the statute of limitations for such claims begins to run only when the depositor discovers or should have d
• Brown v. Christman
  126 F.2d 625· D.C. Cir.· 1942-02-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the property owners' prior action on a bond did not preclude their claim for an equitable lien on a special rent account, and that other property owners might be indispensable parties requiring remand.
• Cockrell v. Taylor
  122 Fla. 798· Fla.· 1936-02-19 ·cited 24×
  Cockrell sued Taylor and others on promissory notes for a real estate commission. The defendants successfully defended on the theory that the notes were delivered conditionally—only to become enforceable if a third party made deferred payments on the underlying land purchase. The
• Slaughter v. The Philadelphia Nat'l Bank
  417 F.2d 21· 3d Cir.· 1969-10-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's award of compensatory damages was improper because it was based on the stock's value in June 1963, when PNB lacked control, and there was insufficient evidence of damages for the period PNB was liable. The case is remanded for a new trial on damages
• Mut. Fin. Co. v. Martin
  63 So. 2d 649· Fla.· 1953-03-10 ·cited 22×
  Mutual Finance Company sought to recover on a promissory note given as part of a conditional sale agreement for a deep freezer that was fraudulently misrepresented and wholly unfit for its intended purpose. The Florida Supreme Court held that because the finance company was so cl
• Sorrells Bros. Packing Co., Inc. v. Union State Bank
  144 So. 2d 74· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-08-01 ·cited 12×
  Sorrells Bros. Packing Co. appeals a summary judgment in favor of Union State Bank, which sought to recover the face amount of a check that Sorrells had stopped payment on at the payee's request. The court held that Union State became a holder in due course when it allowed the pa
• United States v. First Nat. Bank of Prague
  124 F.2d 484· 10th Cir.· 1941-12-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the United States could not recover from the Tradesmens National Bank due to the imposter rule but could recover from the First National Bank of Prague because its prior actions facilitated the fraud.
• Ketchian v. F.P. Concannon and Helena Concannon
  435 So. 2d 394· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding a condition precedent to the promissory note's effectiveness, as such evidence does not violate the parol evidence rule.
• Yost v. Alberta G. Morrow
  262 F.2d 826· 9th Cir.· 1959-01-02 ·cited 10×
  An accommodation maker is liable on a promissory note even if they personally receive no consideration, provided the principal maker received consideration.
• Cracowaner v. Carlton Nat'l Bank
  98 Fla. 792· Fla.· 1929-10-28 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that assumpsit will lie upon a promissory note under seal, overruling common law distinctions that treated sealed notes as specialties requiring action in covenant or debt. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act eliminated practical differences betw
• Roe R. Black v. Denver United States Nat'l Bank
  362 F.2d 38· 8th Cir.· 1966-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the payment by a third party of a note did not, as a matter of law, constitute an accord and satisfaction for the original debtor's note, as the intent of the parties was not conclusively established.
• United States v. First Nat. Bank
  131 F.2d 985· 10th Cir.· 1942-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the impostor rule applies to government checks, meaning the United States cannot recover from the bank on a forged endorsement when the check was delivered to an impostor under the mistaken belief that he was the payee.
• Equip. Acceptance Corp. v. Arwood CAN MFG. Co., Inc.
  117 F.2d 442· 6th Cir.· 1941-02-05 ·cited 8×
  A waiver clause in a conditional sales contract cannot override statutory protections for buyers against fraud in the procurement of a negotiable instrument, especially when the assignee fails to prove holder in due course status.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. & Lewis Bus. Forms of P.R., Inc. v. Caguas Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Puerto RICO
  825 F.2d 536· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 4×
  The court certified two questions to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court regarding a collecting bank's liability to a payee for checks with unauthorized endorsements and whether the payee's negligence is a defense.
• Newman v. Shore
  206 So. 2d 279· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court addresses whether a bank may pay a check jointly payable to husband and wife when the wife's endorsement is forged, and whether the bank's endorsers are liable. The court holds that under Florida law, both spouses must endorse jointly payable checks, and the forged endo
• D'Oench v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  117 F.2d 491· 8th Cir.· 1941-02-11 ·cited 4×
  Under Illinois law, a transferee of accommodation paper for value and in good faith is considered a holder in due course, even if acquired after maturity.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Melbourne v. Sogaard & Debo, Inc.
  406 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions regarding sufficient notice of forged checks were proper, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude the bank was negligent and that many forged checks were not for legitimate business expenses.
• Civic Plaza Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank IN Dallas
  401 F.2d 193· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the omission of a quarterly payment term from the promissory note constituted a material variance from the commitment letter, thus preventing the formation of a binding contract.
• Cong. Fin. Corp. v. J-K Coin OP Equip. Co., Inc.
  353 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1965-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the notes were negotiable instruments, the plaintiff was a holder in due course, and the defendants were liable under the notes and guaranty agreement.
• Cent. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Meltzer
  145 So. 2d 766· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an accommodation endorser of a promissory note is not relieved of liability by the bank's failure to apply the maker's deposited funds against the note, even though the bank had the right to do so.
• Fulton Nat. Bank v. United States
  197 F.2d 763· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The United States can recover on checks with forged endorsements, even without prompt notice, if the collecting banks suffered no damage from the delay.
• Sherwood Distilling Co. v. Peoples First Nat. Bank & Tr. Co.
  193 F.2d 649· 4th Cir.· 1952-01-03 ·cited 2×
  A holder in due course of a negotiable instrument, taken in good faith and for value without notice of any infirmity, is protected even if the instrument was initially signed in blank and later filled fraudulently.
• United States v. Dobbins
  139 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1943-12-10 ·cited 2×
  The United States, as a holder in due course of a promissory note, is not subject to defenses like the statute of limitations or material alteration that would be available against the original payee.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. & Lewis Bus. Forms of P.R., Inc. v. Caguas Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Puerto RICO
  867 F.2d 707· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-02
  A collecting bank is liable without negligence to the payee of a check bearing an unauthorized endorsement, but the payee's own negligence can be a defense if it is the sole cause of the loss.
• Carroll W. Britton v. Mitchell
  361 F.2d 922· 10th Cir.· 1966-06-03
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the Brittons' liability on the promissory note were erroneous, necessitating a new trial for them. The directed verdict against Ballou was affirmed.
• Head v. Wollmann
  272 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1959-10-27
  A principal can ratify an unauthorized note execution by an agent by accepting the benefits of the transaction, even if the principal initially repudiated the act.
• Werger v. Frederick Lee Co., Inc.
  175 F.2d 851· 8th Cir.· 1949-07-14
  The court held that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the appellant because the evidence established she was a holder in due course, and the alleged parol agreement not to negotiate the instrument was inadmissible.