S. K. S. HOLDING COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MARIAN FELL VANS AGNEW, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF P. A. VANS AGNEW, DECEASED, 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 directed verdict for the defendant in a promissory note action, holding that the presumption of delivery under statute was sufficient to support an inference of delivery after endorsement, even against a motion for directed verdict.
Yes, the statutory presumption of delivery, coupled with evidence from which delivery could be inferred, was sufficient to support an inference of delivery after endorsement, making the directed verdict erroneous.
“Though the defendant pleaded that the endorsements of the notes were never completed by delivery, the presumption of delivery afforded by Section 6776, C. G. L., operated to support the inference of delivery after endorsement to be drawn from the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.”
This quote explains how the statutory presumption of delivery was applied to the facts of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, S. K. S. Holding Company, brought an action on promissory notes against the executrix of an accommodation endorser. The notes were tran…
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 Presumption Of Delivery cases and more on FLexlaw
In an action on promissory notes brought against the executrix of an accommodation endorser by one to whom the notes were transferred after their maturity, the court directed a verdict for defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. A motion for new trial was denied and plaintiff took writ of error.
There was1 evidence of a consideration passing to the *831maker, and of tke signature of the endorser; and also evidence from which delivery of the notes to the payee after the endorsement of the defendant’s testator could have been inferred as against the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Though the defendant pleaded that the endorsements of the notes were never completed by delivery, the presumption of delivery afforded by Section 6776, C. G. L., operated to support the inference of delivery after endorsement to be drawn from the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Under the statute delivery of the notes “is presumed until the contrary is proved,” so the notes were erroneously excluded as evidence on the ground that delivery was not proven. Error was committed in directing a verdict for the defendant, for which the judgment is reversed.
Reversed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892 (Fla. 1938)…e against the laws of Florida. It is true that a conspiracy to commit a crime is prohibited by the laws of Florida. If the above indictment fails to state a crime per se, then the conspiracy falls of its own weight. See Croft v. State, 106 Fla. 519, 143 So. 599. A pertinent summary of the indictment appearing in one of the briefs is, viz.: “1. Williams, DuBose and Ferguson were City Commissioners of the City of Miami. “2. They agreed, conspired, combined and confederated with Grady. [*897] “3. The agreem…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Thomas J. Kelly v. Whisnant, 80 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1955)…t the information wholly failed to state any offense against the laws of the state and being so it was wholly void. This court is committed to that doctrine. State ex rel. Williams v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892, 180 So. 357; Croft v. State, 105 Fla. 519, 143 So. 599; State ex rel. Tatham v. Coleman, 122 Fla. 819, 166 So. 221; State v. Alred, Fla., 68 So. 2d 894; Section 11, Declaration of Rights, F.S.A. Constitution of Florida, and Amendment VI, Federal Constitution. Appellant recognizes the rule enunciated in…
-
City of Hialeah v. Groves, 101 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1939)…intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.” Delivery of the bonds is presumed until the contrary is proved; and the proof, standing uncontradicted, made a prima facie case on this issue. S. K. S. Holding Co. v. Vans Agnew, 106 Fla. 830, 143 So. 599. Lack or want of status as a holder in due course is not a defense to a negotiable instrument payable to bearer. Its only effect would be to let in defenses against the first holder, promisee, or obligee. Where such defenses are not as…