J. BRUCE VINING, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES SUTTON, APPELLEE
J. BRUCE VINING, APPELLANT,
CHARLES SUTTON, APPELLEE
242 So. 2d 730
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1971)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from a final judgment for the plaintiff entered after a trial without jury. The essential question presented on the appeal is whether the record reveals evidence as to a consideration for the written personal promise of a corporate officer to pay a corporation debt. The evidence before the court was sufficient to support a finding that the . plaintiff agreed to forego legal action, including possible lien rights, in return for the written promise. The record is sufficient to support the judgment. Knight & Wall Co. v. Tampa Sand Lime Brick Co., 55 Fla. 728, 46 So. 285 (1908) ; Henderson v. Kendrick, 82 Fla. 110, 89 So. 635 (1921); see 7 Fla. Jur., Contracts § 49.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matey v. Pruitt, 510 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…was no competent substantive evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the indemnity cross-claim. Forbearance to enforce a legal right is sufficient consideration to form a contract only if the asserted claim is at least colorable. Vining v. Sutton, 242 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971). Forbearance from suit on a claim of doubtful validity may suffice if a person bona fide believes that he has a fair chance of success in the lawsuit. Henderson v. Kendrick, 82 Fla. 110, 89 So. 635 (1921); Uwanawich v. Gaudini, 3…
Authorities Cited
- Henderson v. Kendrick, 82 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1921)
- The Knight & Wall Co. v. Tampa Sand Lime Brick Co., 55 Fla. 728 (Fla. 1908)