Payne v. Nicholson
Decision Date | 11 December 1930 |
Parties | PAYNE v. NICHOLSON. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Decision.
Error to Circuit Court, Walton County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Action by A. Nicholson against J. E. Payne. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error.
Reversed and new trial granted.
D. Stuart Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, for plaintiff in error.
R. A McGeachy, of Milton, and S. K. Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, plaintiff below, sued plaintiff in error on a promissory note executed by the defendant. Defendant pleaded payment and for a second plea that:
Plaintiff demurred to defendant's second plea; the demurrer was sustained. The case proceeded to trial on the plea of payment.
At the trial the court refused to admit in evidence bill of sale from plaintiff to defendant covering an undivided one-half interest in the jewelry business of Nicholson & Payne, together with all stock and fixtures and accounts of said business, and refused to admit testimony in support of the plea which had been held bad on demurrer.
Verdict was rendered for plaintiff, judgment entered thereon, and defendant sued out writ of error and assigned as error the order of the court sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to the defendant's second plea.
Plaintiff contends that defendant's second plea shows an attempt to vary, alter, or contradict the terms of a written instrument.
As regards a promissory note, an extrinsic agreement as to the mode of payment, or the amount of payment, must be ineffective, since the parties have expressly dealt with those matters in the instrument; but an agreement to concede a credit or counterclaim, as offsetting the obligation of the instrument would be a separate transaction, not dealt with in the instrument, and valid. Wigmore on Evidence, § 2444; Bennett v. Tillmon, 18 Mont. 28, 44 P. 80; Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Malone, 33 Ga.App. 519, 126 S.E. 913; John Lucas & Co. v. Bradley (C. C. A.) 246 F. 693; Roe v. Bank of Versailles, 167 Mo. 406, 67 S.W. 303; Branch v. Wilson, 12 Fla. 543.
Evidence of a parol agreement, made at the time of the execution of notes, that the maker should have the right to offset an account then existing in his favor, is not a variance from the contract embodied in the notes. Bennett v. Tillmon, supra.
Plaintiff contends that defendant's second plea states no defense. Defendant's second plea is one of recoupment. Jarrett Lumber Co. v. Reese, 66 Fla 317, 63 So. 581; Branch v. Wilson, supra; 7 Wait's Actions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Romar Development Co., Inc. v. Gulf View Management Corp.
...be barred by the statute of limitations. See Beekner v. L.P. Kaufman, Inc. [, 145 Fla. 152, 198 So. 794 (1940) ]; Payne v. Nicholson[, 100 Fla. 1459, 131 So. 324 (1930) ]. A party who seeks affirmative relief, whether through an original complaint or a counterclaim, effectively asserts that......
-
Beach v. Great Western Bank
...643 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (on rehearing); see also Allie v. Ionata, 503 So.2d 1237 (Fla.1987); Payne v. Nicholson, 100 Fla. 1459, 131 So. 324 (1930). Similarly, this principle informed the court in Dawe v. Merchants Mortgage & Trust Corp., 683 P.2d 796 (Colo.1984), 7 a case t......
-
Storrs v. Storrs
...reason of plaintiff's breach of another part of the same contract, whether the contract consists of one or several parts. Payne v. Nicholson, 100 Fla. 1459, 131 So. 324; Jarrett Lumber Co. Reese, 66 Fla. 317, 63 So. 581; Delco Light Co. v. Hutchinson Properties, 99 Fla. 410, 128 So. 831. A ......
-
Allie v. Ionata
...though the underlying claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations as an independent cause of action. Payne v. Nicholson, 100 Fla. 1459, 131 So. 324, 326 (1930). See also Beekner v. L.P. Kaufman, Inc., 145 Fla. 152, 198 So. 794 (1940) (upholding the right to raise the defense of......