ECONOMY PLUMBING CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ROBERT SCHWEITZER AND ALICE KRONBERG, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES SALES CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves a dispute over promissory notes where the defendants argued lack of consideration. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that lack of consideration is not a defense for renewal notes, and also affirmed the denial of attorney's fees due to the plaintiff's failure to present evidence.
The court held that lack of consideration is not a defense to an action upon renewal notes. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees because they failed to introduce evidence to support the claim.
“lack of consideration is not a defense to an action upon renewal notes”
Establishes the legal principle applied to the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, defendants in the lower court, were sued by the appellee to enforce promissory notes. The defendants argued that there was a lack of c…
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 Enforcement Of Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were defendants below in a suit to enforce promissory notes. They contend that the court wrongfully applied to the facts of this case the principle of law that lack of consideration is not a defense to an action upon renewal notes. See Padgett v. Lewis, 54 Fla. 177, 45 So. 29 (1907); Price v. Airlift International, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 549, 550. A review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to support the determination of the trial judge as a trier of fact that the notes sued upon were renewal notes within the meaning of the rule of law cited.
The appellee has cross-appealed and assigned as error the failure of the trial *349judge to allow an attorney’s fee as provided in the note. No error has been demonstrated because appellee, as plaintiff, failed to introduce or tender evidence upon the issue. See Thoni v. Thoni, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 420.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. Rattan, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ontinental Bank of Miami Beach, 372 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Curr v. Helene Transportation Corp., 287 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971); Economy Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Charles Sales Corp., 204 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497, 190 So. 796 (1939); Treadwell v. Exchange National Bank of Tampa, 127 Fla. 40, 172 So. 914 (1937); Franklin Phosphate Company, a Corporation v. International Harvester Company of America, 62 Fla.…
-
Milgen Dev., Inc. v. Goodman, 302 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…aille-Duval-Wright Company, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 3. In the case sub judice, attorney’s fees are included in the note which is, of course, contractual. However, as this court held in Economy Plumbing Company v. Charles Sales Corp., Fla.App. 1967, 204 So. 2d 348, it is not error for a court to fail to allow attorney’s fees which are provided by contract, where the party so entitled failed to introduce or tender evidence upon the issue. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the o…
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. Lewis, 54 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1907)
- Famous Brands Distribs., Inc. v. Hoke, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Thoni v. Marine Parrish Thoni, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Price v. Airlift Int'l, Inc., 181 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)