MCKNIGHT
v.
SCHULZ, ET AL.
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.
In a garnishment action, the court held that a draft delivered to the defendant did not constitute payment until presented for payment by the drawee bank, making the garnishee indebted to the defendant at the time of service of the writ.
A draft payable through a bank does not represent payment until presented for payment by the drawee bank, so the garnishee remained indebted to the defendant at the time of service of the garnishment writ.
[1] Under Florida Statute 673.3-120, a draft delivered to a debtor does not constitute payment until the draft is presented for payment by the drawee bank, and therefore the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sought garnishment against defendant Harry Karl Schulz through garnishee who had delivered drafts payable through Hartford National Bank of …
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 Negotiable Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
Final judgment: This cause came on for final hearing on August 10, 1967, after notice, on the answer of garnishee and traverse of answer by plaintiff, counsel for plaintiff and garnishee having entered into and filed a stipulation as to facts. The court reviewed the stipulation, and heard argument of counsel on the single disputed point of whether at the time of service of the writ of garnishment the garnishee was indebted to the defendant, Harry Karl Schulz.
*117The court finds and determines that, as a matter of law, Florida Statute 673.3-120 controls in that, as stipulated, the draft or drafts delivered to the defendant by the garnishee, payable through the Hartford National Bank of Hartford, Connecticut, did not represent payment to the defendant until the draft or drafts had been presented for payment by the Hartford National Bank of Hartford, Connecticut to the drawee. The court determines that at the time of service of the writ of garnishment, the garnishee was indebted to the defendant Schulz in the amount of $500, said amount being subject to the command of a writ of garnishment.
It is therefore ordered that the plaintiff have judgment against the garnishee in the amount of $500, for which let execution issue.