WHITEHALL REALTY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ARTHUR A. KIMMEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Whitehall Realty Corporation and its officer Arthur Kimmel appealed a summary judgment entered against them on promissory notes. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of fact existed regarding the consideration defense that precluded summary judgment and required a jury trial.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of fact remained undisposed regarding the no-consideration defense, specifically whether consideration had been paid and whether the plaintiff had notice of lack of consideration when it discounted the notes. Summary judgment is only appropriate when all essential facts are beyond dispute and only legal conclusions remain.
“It is only where all essential facts are beyond dispute and nothing remains but to determine whether the movant is entitled to a judgment based on those facts that the operation of the rule obviates the need of a jury.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment—essential facts must be undisputed and only legal conclusions remain
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManufacturers Trust Company sued Whitehall Realty Corporation and Arthur Kimmel, its Secretary-Treasurer, on two promissory notes executed by Kimmel o…
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 Suit On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
The lower court entered a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Manufacturers Trust Company, appellee here, in á suit filed by it on two. promissory notes against the maker thereof, the Whitehall Realty Corporation, and an endorser, Arthur A. Kimmel, who was Secretary-Treasurer of Whitehall and had executed the notes on behalf of Whitehall. The plaintiff had discounted the notes for the payee thereon, the Spring Trading Corporation, which had transferred and endorsed the notes over to plaintiff. In their Answer, the defendants Whitehall and Kimmel pleaded (1) no consideration, (2) payment, and (3). lack of corporate authority on the part of Kimmel to execute the notes. On this appeal, the defendants contend that there were genuine issues of fact presented by their Answer, and that the lower court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This contention must be sustained.
It may be, as contended here by plaintiff, that the affidavits, depositions and exhibits showed there were'no genuine issues of fact as to defenses (2) and (3) supra; but it is otherwise as to the de.fense of “no consideration.” As to this issue, there remained undisposed of the question of whether a consideration had been paid and as to whether, at, the time the plaintiff discounted the -notes for the Spring Trading Corporation, it was -on notice that no consideration had as yet passed to that. Corporation from Whitehall. As in the case of Wilson v. Bachrach, Fla., 1953, 65 So. 2d 546, “We have the definite impression from an examination .of the pleadings and depositions, .irrespective of the affidavits which appellees insist-were not timely filed, that a real question of fact was developed and that the judge, in reality, tried the case. This procedure is not authorized by the rule. It is only where all essential facts are beyond dispute and nothing remains but to determine whether the movant is entitled to a judgment based on those facts that the operation of the rule obviates the need of a jury.” Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
DREW, C. J., TERRELL, J., and PARKS, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1957)…ential facts are beyond dispute and nothing remains but to determine whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment based on those facts that the summary proceeding may be invoked. Whitehall Realty Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Company, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 475, Williams v. City of Lake City, Fla. 1953, 62 So. 2d 732, 733. The location of Stein’s car at the time of the accident is the material fact basically essential to support the questioned judgment. The complaint alleged that the car was “negligently a…
-
The Nat'l Exhibition Co. v. Ball, 139 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…ly at issue and by entering a summary decree in favor of plaintiff, the lower court in effect tried the case which was not within its office to do in ruling on a motion for summary decree. Whitehall Realty Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 475; Owens v. MacKenzie, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 677; Ramagli Realty Co. v. Speier, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 71; and Remington v. L. P. Gunson & Company, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 885. Since a génuine issue of material fact exists without reference to…
-
W. O. Owens and his wife v. MacKENZIE, 103 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…Pancoast, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 875. . Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 So. 1011. . See Hallman v. Lipscomb, 114 S.O. 171, 103 S.E. 513; Clay v. Cummins, 207 Ala. 105, 91 So. 790. . Whitehall Realty Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 475; Wilson v. Bachrach, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 546.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Bachrach, 65 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1953)