G. R. K CARTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FIRST TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, A BANKING CORPORATION,, AS ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE WILL ANNEXED, OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE L. RICKARD, 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.
Carter borrowed $11,500 from Rickard for a dog track venture and gave a promissory note. After Rickard's death, his estate demanded payment; Carter refused, claiming a setoff for moneys he allegedly advanced to Rickard during his lifetime. The court affirmed the directed verdict for the estate, holding Carter failed to prove Rickard became legally liable for the alleged advances.
The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Carter bore the burden of proving that the moneys he claimed to have advanced were furnished at Rickard's request or that Rickard acknowledged or accepted them as his own indebtedness. Carter failed to meet this burden, and therefore his setoff plea was not sustained.
“No man can, by a voluntary payment of the debt of another, make himself that man's creditor, and recover from him the amount of the debt so paid.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that prevents Carter from recovering moneys he voluntarily paid on behalf of Rickard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter executed a promissory note for $11,500 to George L. Rickard (a New York sport promoter) as consideration for Rickard's advancement of moneys to…
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 Voluntary Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
This was an action at law on a promissory note for $11,500.00 given by the defendant below, G. R. K. Carter, to George L. Rickard, commonly known as “Tex” Rickard, in his lifetime. The consideration for *361it was an advancement of moneys by Rickard, a sport promoter of New York, for the erection and operation of a race track for dogs. After Rickard died, the First Trust & Savings Bank, as administrator with the will annexed, made demand on Garter for the payment of the note. Carter refused to pay, claiming that he had a set off against Rickard of more than the amount due Rickard’s estate. The pleadings presented this issue for trial. Trial was had in due course and after all the evidence was in for both sides the Circuit Judge directed the jury to return a verdict for the amount of the note and interest, with reasonable attorney’s fees. From the judgment of $13,931.00 principal and interest and $700.00 for attorney’s fees, the defendant below prosecuted this writ of error.
The only error assigned and argued is the direction of a verdict for plaintiff in disregard of the plea of set off. A careful review of the evidence adduced in support of the defendant’s plea claiming a set off for moneys alleged to have been advanced to Rickard during his lifetime, fails to disclose that Rickard ever became legally liable therefor, assuming that any such moneys were ever made over to the witness, A. W. Griffith, as testified to by him. Therefore the plea of set off was not sustained and the court did not err in directing a verdict for plaintiff on proof of the note, and its production in evidence, with supplementary evidence showing that it was unpaid and the amount still due thereon for principal and interest.
The burden was on the defendant claiming a set off for moneys alleged to have been advanced by him to Rickard, the payee of the note, to prove that the amounts claimed by him to have been paid over to Griffith, a third person, were so furnished or advanced at the request of Rickard, the party sought to be charged, or that Rickard in some way acknowledged or accepted the amounts so *362paid over, as his own indebtedness. Romano vs. Palazzo, 83 Fla. 243, 91 Sou. Rep. 114.
No man can, by a voluntary payment of the debt of another, make himself that man’s creditor, and recover from him the amount of the debt so paid. Craig vs. McGehee, 2 Fla. 58.
Judgment affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Filed under Rule 21 A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitman v. State, 97 Fla. 988 (Fla. 1929)…ughter. It is true that in addition to the language necessary to constitute a charge under this statute the indictment embraces the following words: “And being at the time under the influence of intoxicating liquors.” It was held in Cannon v. State, 107 Fla. 360, 91 So. R. 214, that these words are not sufficient to charge an offense under Chap. 9269 of the Laws of 1923, which makes it manslaughter where a person is killed by the operation of a motor vehicle by any person “while intoxicated.” This Act was a…
-
Harris v. Baden, 154 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1944)…hat the cattle-owner was entitled to his injunction, there being no law then in operation that prohibited his cattle from straying into the Marion County territory. This case was followed by the decision in Markham v. Thomas, Sheriff, 107 Fla. 392, 144 So. 885, to the same effect, handed down the same day. The suit was brought by Markham, a citizen and resident of Marion County, to enjoin the sheriff from impounding certain goats owned by him which were running at large in Marion County. The same no-fence…
-
Mizell v. Sweat, 182 So. 409 (Fla. 1938)…ck straying info Duval County from adjacent counties until the provisions of Section 15 relating to fencing was complied with. Appellant contends- that the holding ,of the Chancellor should be reversed and relies on Markham v. Thomas, 107 Fla. 392, 144 So. 885; Teuton v. Thomas, 100 Fla. 78, 129 So. 330; Motes v. Hagan, 101 Fla. 995, 132 So. 676, to support his contention. We have examined these cases but do' not consider that they rule the case at bar. The controlling facts were different, so the judgme…
Authorities Cited
- Romano v. Palazzo, 83 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1922)
- Darius Williams and John A. Craig v. McGehee, 2 Fla. 58 (Fla. 1848)