HANCOCK AND MILLS, APPELLANTS,
v.
HORACE H. HALE, APPELLEE
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 judgment for the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note. The court held that the defendants' pleas, which alleged fraud and lack of consideration, were insufficient because they failed to allege that the plaintiff had notice of these defenses.
No, the pleas were insufficient because they failed to allege that the plaintiff had notice of the alleged fraud and lack of consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff, as a bona fide holder for value, was not affected by these alleged defects.
“The failure to allege in the plea that plaintiff had notice of the alleged facts set out in the plea is fatal.”
Establishes the critical deficiency in the defendants' pleas.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee, Hale, sued the appellants, Hancock and Mills, on a promissory note. The appellants pleaded that the note was obtained by fraud and witho…
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Her-nando county, in an action of assumpsit.
Hale, appellee, sued appellants upon á promissory note, signed by them, payable to N. R.. Carter & Co. or bearer, dated November 1, 1875, due in one year, for $300, and then and there transferred to the plaintiffs for value, as alleged in the declaration, of which defendants then and there had notice.
Defendants pleaded that the note was without valid consideration, and obtained by fraud, and by means of certain threats to seize defendants’ goods for an alleged indebtedness by one Turner, who took the note payable to Carter & Co., who had no interest in the matter.
*209Plaintiff demurred to the pleas that' they set up no valid defense to the action, and as to the plaintiff it does not appear by the pleas that plaintiff had notice of any legal or equitable defense, or of the facts therein alleged.
The demurrer having been submitted, the court sustained it, and gave leave to defendants to plead over, but no further plea being interposed, judgment was had for plaintiff, from which defendants appealed.
The failure to allege in the plea that plaintiff had notice of the alleged facts set out in the plea is fatal.
The plaintiff having taken the note from payee for a valid consideration, as alleged and not denied, and without notice of any defense according to the pleadings, is a bona fide holder, and not affected by the alleged defect in the consideration. Story on Promissory Notes, §§191-197, and citations; 7 Term R., 630; 2 Esp. R., 538.
The judgment is-affirmed with costs.