FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GAINESVILLE, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN R. WILLIAMS, 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 for the defendant in a note collection action, holding that the trial court erroneously excluded relevant rebuttal testimony that could have established whether the bank was a holder in due course by accepting the note as collateral before notice of infirmity.
The trial court erred in excluding the rebuttal questions because they were proper rebuttal evidence and not merely cumulative; the exclusion was harmful error since the existing evidence regarding acceptance of the note as collateral before notice of infirmity was unsatisfactory, and the excluded testimony could have materially affected the determination of the critical issues.
“These questions were proper in rebuttal; and while the testimony sought by them would to some extent be cumulative, it cannot fairly be said on this record that the exclusion of the questions was harmless error, since the evidence as to the acceptance of the note as collateral before any notice was received or had of an infirmity in the note, is not satisfactory, and the testimony sought may have materially affected the determination of the issues.”
Establishes that exclusion of rebuttal evidence was reversible error where the existing evidence on a critical issue was unsatisfactory and the excluded testimony could have been material.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst National Bank sued John R. Williams on a promissory note dated October 12, 1914, payable twelve months later. The bank claimed it received the n…
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 Notice Of Infirmity cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— In an action on a negotiable promissory note brought against Williams by the bank -which held the note as collateral, trial was had upon the issues as to the plaintiff being a holder of the note before maturity and without notice of any infirmities. Plaintiff took a writ of error to a judgment for the defendant.
The note was dated October, 12, 1914, payable twelve months after' date. Plaintiff produced the note, and presented testimony that it was received July 31, 1915, without notice of any infirmity and was accepted and held as collateral from that date. On cross plaintiffs witness testified that after receiving the note from an endorser as collateral he did not state to the maker of the note that the note was sent to the plaintiff by an endorser for the return of a like amount of collateral to the endorser, as a condition to getting the note. The maker of the note testified that the plaintiff’s witness^ the president of the bank, who received the note for the bank, told the maker a day or two after being advised of the infirmity in the note, that he had received the note to be exchanged or substituted for other notes, and when asked if he was going to make the exchange,' he said “not now,” that he had written to the party.from whom the note was received but had received no reply.
It appears that the letter transmitting the note to the president of the plaintiff bank, contained the following: “kindly mail me in exchange for the Williams note a like amount of past due notes.” It also, ¡appears that the bank did not return notes in exchange for the one received ; and that the bank notified the maker of the note that the note was held by the bank. In reply the maker of the note advised the bank of the infirmity in the note and a day or two thereafter the maker of the note had a conversation with the president of the bank above referred to.
On the ground that they were not in rebuttal, the court excluded the following questions propounded to the cashier of the bank who was called as a witness for plaintiff: “State, if you know, when the First National Bank received from Mason & Co. this note of J. R. Williams for $6,000 as col1 at eral securtiy for the note of Mason & Co.’’ “Did the First National Bank hold this note, upon which it is now suing, as collateral security for a note of Mason & Co., on July 31, 1915?”
These questions were proper in rebuttal; and while the testimony sought by them would to some extent be cumulative, it cannot fairly be said on this record’ that the exclusion of the questions was harmless error, since the evidence as to the acceptance of the note as collateral before any notice was received or had of an infirmity in the note, is not satisfactory, and the testimony sought may have materially affected the determination of the issues.
For this error the judgment is reversed, no other error appearing.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001 (Fla. 1927)…disprove any charge against her except her own testimony. In divorce as in other proceedings where the testimony is conflicting but there is ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed. Phinney v. Phinney 77 Fla. 840, 82 So. 357. The evidence here on all issues overwhelmingly supports the finding of the chancellor. Some of the exhibitions of violent and ungovernable temper on the part of defendant Avere directed to other parties but sufficient of them were direc…