IRVING I. BAUM, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS SPECTOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROSE SPECTOR, DECEASED, 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 record did not conclusively show the plaintiff could not prove holder in due course status, and genuine issues of material fact required trial.
Appellant, a holder of a negotiable instrument, appealed a summary final judgment granted to appellee, the payee-endorser. The case involved issues 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 Failure Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon this appeal from a summary final judgment, the appellant, holder of a negotiable instrument, contends that it was error to enter the summary final judgment for the appellee, payee-endorser, because there were genuine issues of material fact. Without reciting the complicated statement of facts involved, it is sufficient to set forth that there are basic issues of forgery of the endorsement, agency of the broker, failure of consideration and whether plaintiff was a holder in due course.
Each party agrees that these issues existed, but they disagree as to which issue is material to a final adjudication. Appellee’s position in contending for affirmance is that the record affirmatively demonstrates that the plaintiff could not produce any evidence to prove that he is a holder in due course. Without determining that this issue is such that if found for the defendant it would preclude recovery by the plaintiff, we hold that this record does not conclusively show that the plaintiff cannot prove that he is a holder in due course.
The several issues are proper for trial. See Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 601, opinion filed November 23, 1966.
Since there are factual issues yet to be resolved in this case, the use of the terms “holder” and “endorser” is solely for the purpose of description. The terms are not used in their technical sense as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Law. The summary judgment is reversed and the cause is-remanded.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baum v. Spector, 211 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. This is the second appearance of this case in this court. See our prior opinion reported in Baum v. Spector, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 50. Baum appeals from an adverse final judgment in his action against the endorser of a note. The main thrust of this appeal is that the findings of the trial judge had no substantial evidence to support them. In part appellant urges that the record co…
Authorities Cited
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)