W. S. CLICK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN R. DOWD AND ALLAN C. DOWD, PARTNERS, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF MOORE HAVEN OVERLAND COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof for their plea of payment on a promissory note. The court emphasized the defendant's responsibility to prove payment by a preponderance of the evidence.
No, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their plea of payment by a preponderance of the evidence.
“The rule is elementary that when the defendant in an action on a promissory note tenders a plea of payment the burden is on him to prove his plea by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving a plea of payment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants in error (plaintiffs) sued plaintiff in error (defendant) on a promissory note. The defendant filed a plea of payment. At the conclusion of…
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 Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
— Defendants in error brought an action at law against plaintiff in error to recover on a promissory note. There was a plea of payment and at the conclusion of all the testimony an instructed verdict was entered for the plaintiff. Defendant took writ of error. The instructed verdict is the basis for the sole assignment of error here.
The rule is elementary that when the defendant in an action on a promissory note tenders a plea of payment the burden is on him to prove his plea by a preponderance of the evidence. International Harvester Co. vs. Smith, 51 Fla. 220, 40 So. 840, 3 R. C. L. 1285. The evidence in this cause has been examined and it fails utterly to meet the 'requirements of this rule.
The judgment below is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
*337Whitfield, P.J., and Davis, J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Alston v. Trillie Shiver, 105 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1958)…ve cited cases. This Court, on page 798, said: “* * * this court has said that the rules as to newly discovered evi [*790] dence ‘are not inflexible and must sometimes bend in order to- meet the ends of justice’, Gaither v. Anderson, 103 Fla. 1190, 135 So. 840, 139 So. 587, 588; and we think of no more appropriate situation for ‘bending’ the rules than the one presented here, where the only reasonable and logical inference is that Wilson [one of the plaintiffs] deliberately falsified his earnings. Other c…
-
Ogburn v. Florence P. Murray and her husband, 86 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1956)…fault in failing to have this evidence available at the trial, this court has said that the rules as to newly discovered evidence “are not Inflexible and must sometimes bend in order to meet the ends of justice”, Gaither v. Anderson, 103 Fla. 1190, 135 So. 840, 139 So. 587, 588; and we think of no more appropriate situation for “bending” the rules than the one presented here, where the only reasonable and logical inference is that Wilson deliberately falsified his earnings. Other courts have so held in an…
-
Jackson v. State, 416 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…exercise of reasonable diligence. See Webb v. State, 336 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Jones v. State, supra. Even were the latter technically not the case, the due diligence requirement is not an inflexible one. Gaither v. Anderson, 103 Fla. 1190, 135 So. 840, 139 So. 587 (1932). On this record, we conclude that the achievement of the ends of justice — which is the paramount, indeed the exclusive interest which concerns us — requires that a jury hear the witnesses in question before the defendant may be…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Harvester Co. of Am. v. Archer Smith and Edward L. Anderson, 51 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1906)