AILEEN A. LINK, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HARRY W. LINK, JR., DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN C. PATTERSON, APPELLEE
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 court held that the plaintiff's affidavit and the missing original note were insufficient to prove execution of the promissory note, especially when execution was denied.
Plaintiff sued the executrix of an estate on a promissory note allegedly executed by the decedent. The defendant denied execution. Plaintiff moved 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
Plaintiff brought action against defendant, executrix of the Estate of Harry W. Link, Jr., deceased, seeking recovery on a promissory note allegedly executed by decedent. Defendant answered, not under oath, denying execution of the note and alleging failure and want of consideration.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment with a supporting affidavit made by plaintiff himself, payee of the note. Defendant filed no opposing affidavits. There is disagreement between the parties as to whether or not the original note was introduced at the hearing below; appellants contend that it was not while the appellees contend that it was. Our search of the record does not disclose that it was introduced.
From an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, defendant takes this appeal. We find error and reverse. Defendant’s denial of execution of the note put the burden of proving its execution on plaintiff.1 Plaintiff’s evidence, consisting of his own affidavit, and the original note which we have been unable to find is insufficient in law to warrant summary judgment in his favor. Assuming the original note was introduced, there is no presumption that a signature appearing on an instrument is genuine, and where execution is, by proper, plea denied, plaintiff must then prove genuineness.2
Plaintiff’s proof, consisting of his own affidavit, is inadmissible under provisions of section 90.05 F.S., F.S.A.
The judgment appealed is therefore reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ginn v. Robert Weiss et ux., 183 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…DONALD K., J., concur. . Langley v. New Deal Cab Company (Fla.App.1962), 138 So. 2d 789. . Rule 1.36(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell (Fla.1961), 131 So. 2d 730. . Link v. Patterson (Fla.App.1965), 175 So. 2d 213. . Atlantic Land & Improvement Co. v. Lee, 93 Fla. 579, 112 So. 549, 551.…
Authorities Cited
- Barnes v. Boulevard Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 124 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Knight v. Knight, 9 Fla. 283 (Fla. 1860)