CLARENCE COUCH
v.
JOHN E. GRAHAM
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 jury's verdict in favor of the defendant, finding substantial evidence supported the plea denying the note's authorized delivery and the plaintiff's ownership. The court declined to disturb the judgment, deferring to the jury's determination of the facts.
Yes, there was substantial evidence in the record to sustain the plea denying authorized delivery and ownership, and therefore the jury's verdict was supported.
“The controlling question presented is whether or not the note constituting the cause of action was delivered to the payee named therein under authority of the maker.”
This quote identifies the central legal issue the court considered.
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 brought an action on a promissory note. The defendant filed pleas denying that the note was delivered to the payee with the maker's auth…
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
In this case .judgment was entered in favor of the defendant upon verdict rendered by a jury trying the issues presented by joinder of issue on pleas to declaration.
. The pleas were not attacked by demurrer- of motion to strike.
• The controlling question presented is whether or not the note constituting the cause of action was delivered to the payee named therein under authority of the maker. The record shows that the note was delivered to the plaintiff payee long after the maturity date thereof and there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain .the plea denying the delivery, by the defendant or with his authority, and ownership of the note by” the plaintiff, dependent upon an authorized delivery. In view of the fact that this issue appears to have been determined by the jury adversely to *609the plaintiff, and the trial court having denied a motion for a new trial, we should not disturb the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.