BENEFICIAL FINANCE CO.
v.
DYER, ET UX.

Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. | 1966-10-28
No. 2096
29 Fla. Supp. 99 Dade County Circuit Court (1966)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court did not err in affirming the judgment, as the defendants' counterclaim failed to state a cause of action and the motion to transfer was not properly presented.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued defendants on a promissory note. Defendants counterclaimed for slander and raised the affirmative defense of failure of consideration. …

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.


Opinion of the Court
RALPH O. CULLEN, Circuit Judge.

*100RALPH O. CULLEN, Circuit Judge.

The court has reviewed the entire record in this case, heard the briefs and heard argument of counsel.

The plaintiff-appellee filed its action in the small claims court to recover upon a promissory note executed by the defendant-appellants.

Defendants below appeal from a final judgment for the balance due upon their promissory note, entered by reason of lack of prosecution on the part of defendants.

Defendants filed their counterclaim for slander and claimed damages in excess of $5,000. This' counterclaim, in the opinion of this court, failed to state a cause of action.

By separate count, the counterclaim also pleads the affirmative defense of failure of consideration as to the defendant Barbara Dyer. Every maker of a note is presumed to have become a party thereto for value. §674.27, Florida Statutes. As1 this plea was not sworn to, plaintiff was relieved from the burden of proving consideration. Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, 112 So.2d 394.

Defendants urge as error the failure of the court below to grant their motion to transfer the cause by reason of the lack of jurisdiction of the court below because they had counterclaimed for a sum in excess of $5,000. The motion to transfer was not ruled upon, if called up for hearing. It is settled that a court of limited jurisdiction, prior to transferring a claim in excess of its jurisdiction, is authorized to determine whether the counterclaim alleges an enforceable claim. Platt v. Keneo Chemical Co., 132 So.2d 27. The court does not find that the court below committed error.

The premises1 considered, it is ordered that the final judgment entered by the court below is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw