HARRY K. ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
PEOPLES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SHORES, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 affirmed the judgment because the appellant failed to demonstrate error due to an incomplete trial record.
The appellant was sued as an endorser on a promissory note. He argued that a modification agreement materially altered the note and discharged him fro…
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 Affirmative Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Harry K. Anderson, was one of several defendants. This appeal is from a final judgment entered at the conclusion of a non-jury trial. The final judgment recites that Anderson was sued as an endorser upon a demand promissory note which the court had received in evidence at the trial.
The court found, among other things, that Anderson had not proved his affirmative defenses. The appellant urges that the evidence before the trial court established his affirmative defense that the terms of the promissory note had been materially altered by a written modification agreement. He further urges that the execution of the written agreement established that the plaintiff bank did not rely upon a waiver contained in the note and *668that therefore the modification agreement amounted to a discharge of the appellant.
There is no substantial conflict as to the law applicable. If the appellant as defendant had established the facts he now argues, the trial court’s finding would have been erroneous. See 4 Fla.Jur., Bills, Notes and Checks, § 208. Nevertheless, we are required to affirm the judgment because error has not been demonstrated. The appellant has furnished us with the documentary evidence upon which he relies, but has failed to furnish us with a record of the trial of the cause. It therefore ap-. pears that he has not demonstrated error under the principles stated in Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 226; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801; Wilder v. Altman, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 250.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Granger Lumber Co., Inc., 275 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…c., 213 So. 2d 258 (Fla.App.1968); Greene v. Hoiriis, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla.App.1958); Geiger v. City of Leesburg, 186 So. 2d 260 (Fla.App.1966); Wilder v. Altman, 179 So. 2d 250 (Fla.App.1965); Anderson v. Peoples First National Bank of Miami Shores, 220 So. 2d 667 (Fla.App.1969); United States v. Dahlberg, 115 So. 2d 86 (Fla.App.1959). During the pendency of this appeal, it appeared from the several motions filed herein, most of which were not permitted by the appellate rules, that appellant failed to provid…
Authorities Cited
- NIX v. Lake W. Koontz, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Wilder v. Altman, 179 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)