Bennett v. Williams

• Decision Date: 12 December 1941
• Citation: 149 Fla. 4,5 So.2d 51
• Parties: BENNETT v. WILLIAMS et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

5 So.2d 51

149 Fla. 4

BENNETT v. WILLIAMS et al.

Florida Supreme Court

December 12, 1941

T. B. Ellis, Jr., of Fort Pierce, for plaintiff in error.

Denison & Smith, of Fort Pierce, for defendants in error.

BROWN, Chief Justice.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment entered upon a directed verdict in favor of defendants in error in the amount of principal and interest of two promissory notes.

The plaintiff in error executed two notes of $500 each on April 19, 1937. An identical provision for interest was made in each of these notes as follows, '* * * with interest after date at the rate of eight per annumuntil paid.' There is an endorsement on the back of each note stating 'Int. Pd to 4/19/38 W.E.V. $40.00'. The pleas filed to the declaration admitted the execution of the notes but offered to prove certain setoffs. Verdict was directed for the defendants in error in the principal amount of the notes with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum. Because of abandonment of errors assigned and stipulation, the sole question presented here is whether it was proper for the court below to enter the judgment in so far as it provides for the payment of interest on the notes.

It is the contention of plaintiff in error that the provisions in the notes for interest are ambiguous because of the evident omission of the words 'per cent' immediately before the words 'per annum', and that it is impossible to determine what interest was intended paid.

Section 6777 C.G.L., provides for the interpretation of ambiguities and omissions in negotiable instruments in certain instances, but there is no provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act of this State which directly controls the present situation. Section 6936, C.G.L. 1927, provides for the rate of interest where the instrument makes no provision for an interest rate. Under this section, if no attempt had here been made to state an interest rate, interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum would have been assessable. Myrick v. Battle, 5 Fla. 345; Patrick v Kirkland, 53 Fla. 768, 43 So. 969, 125 Am.St.Rep. 1096 12 Ann. Cas. 540.

The use of the phrase, 'eight per annum until paid' did not, as is contended, render that provision of the note fatally ambiguous. In construing a contract the object is to ascertain the intent of the parties by a reasonable construction. See Bloodworth v. A. H. & F. H. Lippincott. 78 Fla. 261, 82 So. 827; Holmes v. Kilgore, 89 Fla 194, 103 So. 825. A reasonable construction of the words here used can only lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff...