MRS. HORTENSE J. REESE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ARTHUR C. SCHENCK, AS RECEIVER OF AND FOR THE BANK OF WAUCHULA, 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.
Hortense Reese executed promissory notes while married (which were void as to her), then after divorce executed individual notes to the bank in exchange for the original joint note to avoid threatened suit. The court held the original individual notes had valuable consideration and affirmed dismissal of the bank's suit on the renewal notes.
The court held that the original joint note, though void as to Mrs. Reese while married, constituted a valuable consideration for her individual notes because it was a valid obligation of the divorced husband. Therefore, the renewal notes were supported by consideration and the demurrer was properly sustained.
“The note being valid obligation of the divorced husband constituted a valuable consideration for the notes of Mrs. Reese.”
Establishes that the original joint note provided valuable consideration for the individual notes despite being initially void as to the married woman.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Reese executed a promissory note with her husband while under coverture. After divorce, the bank threatened suit on the original note. To avoid t…
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 Sui Juris cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case Schenck, as receiver, sued Mrs. Reese on certain promissory notes.
The second amended second plea of the defendant, in which it is attempted to plead “no consideration” and the allegations of which must be construed most strongly against the pleader, shows that Mrs. Reese while under coverture executed a note with her husband. The plea further shows that after Mrs. Reese was divorced the bank threatened suit. Mrs. Reese, to avoid the threatened suit and because of alleged misrepresentations by the Bank as to her legal liability, made and executed her individual notes to the bank and received in exchange therefor the note executed by herself and her former husband, being the note first above mentioned. The note being valid obligation of the divorced husband constituted a valuable consideration for the notes of Mrs. Reese. The plea is silent as to whether or not the original notes were endorsed by the Bank before delivery to her, but this is *167immaterial, as in any event she would he entitled to have the endorsement of the bank on the notes. See Parr v. Fort Pierce Bank & Trust Co., 100 Fla. 941, 130 South. Rep. 445.
The note of husband and wife was void as to the married woman. After the execution of the note Mrs. Reese was divorced and thereby became sui juris. As the plea shows upon its own allegations that there was valuable consideration for the original individual notes of Mrs. Reese and that the notes sued on were notes given by her in renewal of such original individual notes, the demurrer was properly sustained.
The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
State v. The City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1933)…o not forbid but contemplate proper classifications of property in making just valuations for taxation. See Hayes v. Walker, 54 Fla. 163, 44 So. 747; State v. Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 So. 473; State ex rel. v. City of St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 742, 144 So. 313; State ex rel. v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 53, 137 So. 261. Classifications of property to secure just taxable valuations, do not, however, validate municipal taxation of lands' which cannot legally be included in the municipality as a particular tax…
-
State ex rel. J. H. Sherrill & D. A. Vann v. Milam, 113 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1932)…Internal Improvement Fund v. Baily, 10 Fla. 112, text 129, 131; Rorick v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 57 Fed. (2nd) 1048, supra. Humphries v. State, 108 Fla. 92, 145 So. 858; State ex rel. v. St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 742, 144 So. 313. In the Rorick case above cited Judge Bryan, Circuit Judge, and District Judges Shepard and Strum, sitting as a statutory three-judge court for the Northern District of Florida, had before them this identical question; that is, the effect of Chapte…
-
City of Clearwater v. State, 108 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1933)…peremptory writ of mandamus must follow the alternative writ and cannot be broader in its terms than the alternative writ. State ex rel. Hutchins v. Tucker, 106 Fla. 905, 143 Sou. Rep. 754; State ex rel Keefe v. City of St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 742, 144 Sou. Rep. 313. Such an objection as that a peremptory writ is beyond the scope of the alternative writ is a fundamental one going to the validity of the judgment. Fundamental errors in a judgment as a matter of law, can be raised and insisted upon at any time, ev…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence