EAST COAST DRY GOODS CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOMERSET SPORTSWEAR, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1963-03-12
No. 62-508
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
151 So. 2d 68 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1963) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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

A check for less than the amount stated, even with a settlement legend, is insufficient alone to prove accord and satisfaction without considering inferences from all evidence.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant appealed a final judgment for the plaintiff on an account stated, relying solely on a paid check for a lesser amount bearing a settlemen…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals a final judgment for the plaintiff upon an account stated. The defendant-appellant does not bring to this Court a transcript of the testimony. He relies entirely on the proposition that his plea of “payment in full” was conclusively proved by a paid check which was admitted in evidence.

The check was for an amount less than the account stated and bore the following printed legend: “This check is in settlement of the following invoices. If not correct, return, no receipt is necessary.”

Even if we consider the answer amended to include a proper pleading of accord and satisfaction, the exhibit alone is not sufficient for reversal. The question of whether or not accord and satisfaction had been proved depended upon proper and reasonable inferences to be drawn from all the evidence. J. A. Cantor Associates, Inc. v. Blume, Fla.App.19S8, 106 So.2d 603, 606.

The judgment must be affirmed under the rule stated in Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 226, 228.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Eve Pence v. Ennis, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
    …entitled to other credits, leaving a balance due of $750. The record on appeal does not contain a transcript or narrative report of the trial. We must, therefore, affirm. See East Coast Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Somerset Sportswear, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 68; Widmeyer v. Olds, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So. 2d 825; Pan American Metal Products Co., Inc. v. Healy, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So. 2d 96, certiorari dismissed without opinion, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 651; and Insana v. Hasty, Fla. App.1959, 109 So. 2d 791. Affi…
  • …ontended, or, as argued by the defendant, to effect a complete payment and discharge of those obligations. Hence, the defense of accord and satisfaction was properly submitted to the jury, East Coast Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Somerset Sportswear, Inc., 151 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); J. A. Cantor Associates, Inc. v. Blume, 106 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. Day & Co., 190 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Best Concrete Corp. v. Oswalt Engineering Service Corp., 188 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2…
  • State v. Levine, 258 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
    …ettled rule of law making it mandatory that the defendant subpoena the witnesses he expects to rely upon for his defense. This rule has been clearly set forth in Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 62. See also Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 68. We recognize the rule as stated and simply hold that there is not sufficient record before us to indicate that the trial judge erred in finding that this case constituted an exception to the general rule. Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw