THE FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY ELIZABETH LONG AND HAROLD B. LONG, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
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 affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a case involving promissory notes and a contract executed by a married woman. The court held that such obligations, even if valid in New York, are void and unenforceable under Florida law when executed by a married woman residing in Florida.
No, such notes and contracts executed by a married woman residing in Florida are void and cannot form the basis of a common law action in Florida, even if the original obligations were valid in another state.
“But, when the plaintiff’s assignor accepted in lieu of that obligation the contract and notes executed in Florida by a married woman then residing in Florida, and which notes were made payable at a bank in Florida, it accepted an obligation which could not form the basis of a common law action in this State, because the notes so executed by such married woman are void and the allegation of the declaration establish this state of facts.”
This quote explains why the Florida court found the notes and contract unenforceable.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's assignor accepted promissory notes and a contract executed in Florida by a married woman. These instruments were given in exchange for…
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 Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
[*548] Buford, J.
In this case demurrer was sustained to an amended declaration and, the plaintiff declining to plead further, order of court was entered dismissing the cause, to which order writ of error was taken.
The declaration attempts to allege a cause of action based upon promissory notes and a contract executed by a married woman in the State of Florida, which notes and contract were so executed by her in consideration of the extiuguishment of certain obligations which she executed in the State of New York.
It appears that the obligation alleged to have been so satisfied and extinguished was valid and binding under the laws of the State of New York. See Sec. 51, Article 4 of the Domestic Relation Law of the State of New York. But, when the plaintiff’s assignor accepted in lieu of that obligation the contract and notes executed in Florida by a married woman then residing in Florida, and which notes were made payable at a bank in Florida, it accepted an obligation which could not form the basis of a common law action in this State, because the notes so executed by such married woman are void and the allegation of the declaration establish this state of facts.
The order sustaining the demurrer to the amended declaration and dismissing the cause should be affirmed on authority of the opinion in the cases of Hodges v. Price, 18 Fla. 342; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher et al., 58 Fla. 377, 50 Sou. 504, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Ellis,' C. J., and Strum; and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Kellogg-Citizens Nat'l Bank of Green Bay v. Felton, 145 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1940)…bjected under Sections 1 and 2, Article XI, of the Florida Constitution as to matters of substantive law and not merely procedure. See Hodges v. Price, 18 Fla. 342; Va.-Car. Chem. Co. v. Fisher, 58 Fla. 377, 50 So. 504; Fidelity & Cas. Co., v. Long, 94 Fla. 547, 114 So. 249; Lloyd v. Cooper Corp., 101 Fla. 533, 134 So. 562. See also Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith, 97 Fla. 601, 121 So. 900. There has been quoted to us the following as a statute of the State of Wisconsin: “Women shall have the same rig…
Authorities Cited
- The Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. v. Fisher, 58 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1909)
- Hodges v. Miles Price, 18 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1881)