THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION,
v.
JACK DAVIS, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS JACK DAVIS MOTORS
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 First National Bank of Miami issued a check against a customer's account despite receiving a stop-payment order from the depositor. The Florida Supreme Court upheld judgment for the depositor, holding that a bank's wrongful payment of a stopped check constitutes conversion for which the depositor may recover damages.
A bank is liable to its depositor when it pays a check against the depositor's explicit stop-payment order. The bank's disregard of the depositor's order constitutes a violation of its duty to the depositor as it relates to funds in the account.
“plaintiff, being a depositor in defendant bank, issued his check against his account in the said bank in the sum of $475.00, but, before said check was presented to said bank, plaintiff ordered said bank not to pay the check; that after receiving plaintiff's order not to pay the check the bank disregarded the order, paid the check and deducted the amount thereof from plaintiff's account.”
Establishes the core facts: the depositor issued a stop-payment order which the bank received but ignored.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis held an account at First National Bank of Miami and issued a check for $475.00 against his account. Before the check was presented for payment, …
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 Stop Payment Order cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to test the legality of the judgment of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the Civil Court of Record of Dade County.
The declaration was in one count, as follows:
“Said defendant became and was prior to the institution of this suit and still is justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of four hundred and seventy-five *674dollars ($475.00), together with interest from August 24th, 1940, money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.
“And being so indebted the defendant in consideration thereof then and there promised to pay to the plaintiff on request the said several sums of money; yet, the said defendant though often requested has not paid the same or any part thereof to the plaintiff but refuses so to do.
“Wherefore, plaintiff sues the defendant and claims damages in the sum of one thousand dollars ($1000.00) .”
To the declaration there was interposed a single plea of never was indebted as alleged.
The proof showed that plaintiff, being a depositor in defendant bank, issued his check against his account in the said bank in the sum of $475.00, but, before said check was presented to said bank, plaintiff ordered said bank not to pay the check; that after receiving plaintiff’s order not to pay the check the bank disregarded the order, paid the check and deducted the amount thereof from plaintiff’s account.
No plea of subrogation, of counter-claim, or of set-off or of recoupment was interposed. Under the pleadings and proof, judgment was properly entered for plaintiff. •
Writ of certiorari is denied.
So ordered.
BROWN, C; J„ WHITFIELD, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooke v. Commercial Bank OF Miami, 119 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…d or uncertified check on a general account is simply an order which may be countermanded and payment forbidden by the drawer at any time before it is actually paid or accepted by the bank on which it is drawn. See First Nat. Bank of Miami v. Davis, 150 Fla. 673, 8 So. 2d 403. See also cases cited at 5A Michie, Banks and Banking, § 193 (perm. ed.); 7 Am.Jur., Banks, § 602; 9 C.J.S. Banks and Banking § 344a. The question that must be determined in this case is: Was payment on check 1 made prior to or subsequ…