W. M. HANCOCK AND F. F. BARDIN, PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS HANCOCK & BARDIN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
STATE EXCHANGE BANK, A CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against a partnership because the judgment was improperly entered, despite affirming the jury's findings on the partnership's liability and the notes' validity.
The court held that the judgment was defective because it was ambiguously worded, creating uncertainty about whether it applied to the individual partners or the partnership as a distinct entity.
“The pleas found deficient, denied neither the partnership nor the making of the notes by the partnership.”
Establishes that the pleas Hancock raised did not contest the existence of the partnership or its execution of the notes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHancock & Bardin, a partnership, owed promissory notes to the State Exchange Bank. Hancock denied making the notes or authorizing anyone to do so on h…
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 Partnership Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is an action upon promissory notes given the bank by a partnership composed of Hancock & Bardin.
Bardin interposed no defense, while Hancock files three pleas in which he denied that he-made the notes, or authorized any one to do so for him. Demurrers to these pleas were properly sustained. The declaration sought to bind Hancock as a member of a partnership, the makers of the notes, and the material question of the partnership was submitted to the jury upon other pleas. The pleas found deficient, denied neither the partnership nor the making of the notes by the partnership.
We can not consider the assignment based upon the supposed charge of the court. It is not presented to us in a bill of exceptions, nor in the statutory substitute therefor. The verdict is sufficiently intelligible in settling the issues submitted, finding for the plaintiff, and, assessing its damages finds that the partnership existed and that the notes were the notes of the partnership. The judgment, however, is defective. It does not follow the declaration, but awards recovery from “the defendant, the said Hancock & Bardin.” The use of the singular “defendant,” leaves doubt as to whether the individuals composing the partnership are meant, or the partnership treated as a distinct entity. This confusion and departure causes us to send the cause back for the entry of a proper judgment. See Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River State Bank, 61 Fla. 106, 55 South. Rep. 836.
Reversed for proper judgment.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1925)…her appropriate pleading in the court below, so the question cannot be considered at this time. Thomas Brothers Company v. Price, 56 Fla. 854, 48 So. 262; Vaughan’s Seed Store v. Stringfellow, 56 Fla. 708, 48 So. 410; Hancock v. State Exchange Bank, 70 Fla. 243, 70 So. 211; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 60 Fla. 83, 53 So. 838. It is conceded by all counsel engaged in this case that the sole question presented for review here is the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain the decree of the chancellor.'…
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Ebert, 102 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1931)…Imp. Fund v. Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile R. R. Co., 16 Fla. 708; Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River State Bank, 61 Fla. 106, 55 South. Rep. 836; Paul v. Commercial Bank of Ocala, 66 Fla. 83, 63 South. Rep. 265; Hancock v. State Exchange Bank, 70 Fla. 243, 70 South. Rep. 211; Potter v. Realty Securities Co., 77 Fla. 768, 82 South. Rep. 298; 33 C. J. 1124-1127. When an improper judgment is entered upon a proper verdict the appellate court will reverse the judgment with directions for entry of a prope…
-
Polk Cnty. Nat. Bank of Bartow v. Shelton, 69 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1934)…atute permits a traverse of is an allegation which is decisive of the whole ease. It cites in support of its position, Johnson v. Florida East Coast Ry., 66 Fla. 415, 63 So. 713, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 561, Ann. Cas. 1936C, 1210; Hancock v. State Bank, 70 Fla. 243, 70 So. 213; Little v. Bradley, 43 Fla. 402, 31 So. 342. On matters of Florida pleading the writer does not claim to speak with authority. Quinn v. Smith Co. (C. C. A.) 57 F.(2d) 784. It seems to him, however, that the pleas traversed material and…
Authorities Cited
- Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River State Bank, 61 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1911)