WILLIE REATH, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1972-03-21

No. 71-973

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

259 So. 2d 175 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1972) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: § 790.01(2), Fla.Stat. 1969, F.S.A.; Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 683.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Speer v. Friedland, 276 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)

…sentative capacity. See comment under F.S. § 673.3-402 F.S. A.; 4A Fla.Jur., Bills, Notes, Etc., § 349; 23 A.L.R.3rd 932, 967; 11 Am.Jur.2d, Bills and Notes, § 558, p. 629. See also the comment in Schaufelberger v. Mister Softee, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 259 So. 2d 175. In the case sub judice the check signed by appellant was ambiguous on its face as to whether she had signed as a comaker or in a representative capacity. Pa-rol evidence was therefore admissible to show the intention of the parties. Appellant tes…
Thomas v. State, 269 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)

…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Burkhead v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 690; Ricks v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So. 2d 763; Reath v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So. 2d 175; § 790.01(2), Fla.Stat. (1969), F.S.A.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw