J. A. KING, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
E. B. MCCONNELL, 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.
King borrowed $200 from McConnell and later gave a note for the debt. When McConnell sued on the original loan, King sought to introduce evidence that he had given a promissory note, arguing this constituted payment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for McConnell, holding that merely giving a note for an existing debt does not constitute payment absent an express or implied agreement that the note is payment or actual payment made.
Giving a note for an existing debt is not payment of the debt unless the note is received under an express agreement that it is payment, under circumstances from which such an agreement may be fairly inferred, or unless payment in fact is made. The trial court did not err in excluding the questioned evidence because they did not indicate any such express or implied agreement and their materiality was not sufficiently demonstrated.
“Giving a note for an existing-debt is not a payment of the debt, unless the note is received under an express agreement that it is a payment, or under circumstances from which an agreement may be fairly inferred to regard the note as payment, or unless payment in fact is made.”
The court's statement of the controlling legal principle regarding when a promissory note constitutes payment of a debt.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcConnell loaned King $200 on demand. King later executed and delivered a promissory note to McConnell dated January 6, 1908, due July 1, 1908, for th…
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.
Whitfield, C. J.
-An action in assumpsit on common counts was brought by McConnell against King in the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The defendant pleaded “never was indebted,” and also “that before ac tion. he satisfied and discharged the plaintiff’s claim by payment. At the trial the plaintiff testified that he had loaned the defendant'$200.00 in money to be paid on demand and that no part thereof had been paid. On cross-examination the following questions were asked the plaintiff by the defendant: “Did you not after the loan of the said money receive and accept a note made by the defendant to you for the sum of money sued for herein?” “State whether or not you received from the defendant for your loan a note for $200.00 dated January 6, 1908, due July 1st, 1908, and if you endeavored to sell said note?” The first question was objected to bjr the plaintiff on the grounds that it was “irrelevant and incompetent” and not admissible under the pleas filed.”' The second question was objected to as being “irrelevant and incompetent.” The objections were sustained and exceptions duly taken. As a witness the defendant was. asked to “state whether or not after you borrowed said -money sued for you made and executed and delivered a note to the plaintiff dated January 6, 1908, due July 1, 1908, for the'amount of money sued for herein?” The plaintiff objected to the question on the ground that it is “incompetent and irrelevant and is not admissible under the plea of payment.” The objection was sustained and an exception taken. By direction of the court a verdict for $200.00 in favor of the plaintiff was returned. A motion for new trial was denied and an exception reserved. To a judgment on the verdict a writ of error was taken and the rulings above stated are assigned as errors.
Giving a note for an existing-debt is not a payment of the debt, unless the note is received under an express agreement that it is a payment, or under circumstances from which an agreement may be fairly inferred to regard the note as payment, or unless payment in fact is- made. See May v. Gamble, 14 Fla. 467; Salomon v. Pioneer Co-operative Co., 21 Fla. 374; Frank v. Williams, 36 Fla. 136, 18 South. Rep. 351.
The questions excluded by the court do not indicate that a note was given with an express or implied agreement that it was to be regarded as payment of the debt; and in the absence of a showing that the materiality and relevancy of the questions would be duly made to appear in the course of the trial the court did not err in sustaining the objections made to the questions. The indebtedness was proven without dispute and the affirmative charge was not erroneous.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradford G. Williams v. Lawyer's Co-operative Publ'g Co., 136 Fla. 884 (Fla. 1939)…ment and promise to pay the debt within the period of the statute of limitations. See May, et al., v. Gamble, 14 Fla. 467; Salomon v. Pioneer Co-operative Co., 21 Fla. 374; Frank Herman & Co. v. Williams, 36 Fla. 136, 18 Sou. 351; King v. McConnell, 57 Fla. 77, 49 Sou. 539; Peacock v. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 73 Fla. 1207, 75 Sou. 799; Cracowaner, et al., v. Carlton National Bank, 98 Fla. 792, 124 Sou. 275; Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 Sou. 341. Interrogatory No. 6 was as follows: “If your answer to…
-
Our Home Life Ins. Co. v. Peacock, 71 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1916)…e premium, but merely an extension of time for the payment till the maturity of the note. Herman v. Williams, 36 Fla. 136, 18 South. Rep. 351; McDonald v. Providence Savings Life Assurance Society, 108 Wis. 213, 84 N. W. Rep. 154; King v. McConnell, 57 Fla. 77. The receipt of the premium was not acknowledged in the policy. It was not in fact paid. A subsequent mutual agreement that the “contract of insurance” and “the note given therefor” shall “stand discharged,” is not required to be in writing. The in…
-
Cap. Nat'l Bank OF Tampa v. Hutchinson, 435 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1970)…that a receipt or ledger contains the words “paid in full,” or similar phraseology, does not render parol evidence inadmissible with respect to it. Phillips v. Frost, 147 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1962). [*51] However, in King v. McConnell, 57 Fla. 77, 49 So. 539 (1909), the Florida Supreme Court indicated: “Giving a note for an existing debt is not a payment of the debt, unless the note is received under an express agreement that it is a payment, or under circumstances from which an agreement ma…
Authorities Cited
- Frank Herman & Co. v. Helena Williams, 36 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1895)
- May v. Gamble, 14 Fla. 467 (Fla. 1874)
- Salomon v. The Pioneer Co-operative Co., 21 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1885)