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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment against the appellant, who claimed to be a holder in due course of a promissory note. The court found sufficient evidence that the appellant purchased the note from his own agent, who was also the maker of the note, thus precluding holder in due course status.
Yes, there was substantial evidence to support the trial judge's findings. The evidence indicated that the appellant purchased the note from his own agent, who was also the maker of the note, which disqualifies him from being a holder in due course.
“The main thrust of this appeal is that the findings of the trial judge had no substantial evidence to support them.”
This quote establishes the appellant's primary argument on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Irving I. Baum, sued the appellee, Louis Spector, as the endorser of a promissory note. Baum claimed he was a holder in due course. The…
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 Holder In Due Course cases and more on FLexlaw
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 conclusively establishes that he was a holder in due course. Our review of the record reveals evidence which if believed by the trier of fact was sufficient to establish that the appellant purchased the endorsed promissory note from his own agent and that his own agent was also the maker of the note. Under these circumstances the appellant would not be a holder in due course. See cases collected at 11 Am.Jur.2d 467, Bills and Notes, § 431.
We have examined the record for other claimed deficiencies and found that the record is sufficient to support the conclusions reached by the trial judge.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hollis Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1985)…in that the denials were based on the lack of proper criteria for certiorari and not on the lack of certiorari power. E.g., Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523 (1882); State v. Williams, 237 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Marlowe v. Ferreira, 211 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The majority opinion characterizes this Court’s decision in State v. G.P. as having held “that no right of review by certiorari exists if no right of appeal exis…
-
Tucker v. Resha, 610 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…aw certiorari is not to be used to [*464] sidestep the rule of law narrowly restricting those non-final orders subject to review. See Witten v. Howard Vernon Lodges and Restaurants, Inc., 169 So. 2d 531, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Marlowe v. Ferreira, 211 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (acknowledging discretionary nature of writ available “only in exceptional cases”). Rule 9.130(a)(1) provides that review of non-final orders other than those listed is to be by the method prescribed in Rule 9.100, which expressly…
-
R.L.B. v. State, 486 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1986)…0); State v. Gibson, 353 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); State v. Wilcox, 351 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, 291 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); State v. Williams, 237 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Marlowe v. Ferreira, 211 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Gulf Cities [*591] Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); State v. Coyle, 181 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). A rich heritage of decisional law provides…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baum v. Spector, 193 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)