Sample v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 07 May 1931 |
| Citation | 134 So. 549,101 Fla. 818 |
| Parties | SAMPLE et al. v. WILSON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Polk County; Harry G. Taylor, Judge.
Action by T. J. Wilson against J. W. Sample, individually, and as trustee. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant brings error.
Reversed.
G. P Garrett, of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.
Huffaker & Edwards, of Bartow, and Akerman & Akerman, of Orlando, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, J. W. Sample, executed his promissory note to Lake Marion Groves Corporation, dated April 23, 1925, due on or before March 31, 1928, signed 'J. W. Sample Trustee.' The Lake Marion Groves Corporation indorsed the note to Thomas J. Arline, who in turn indorsed it to T. J Wilson, the defendant in error, without recourse. Wilson claiming to be a holder in due course prosecuted this action against Sample to recover on the note. At the conclusion of all the testimony a motion to strike the evidence offered by the defendant and to direct a verdict for the plaintiff was granted. Writ of error was taken to that judgment.
In a per curiam order made February 7, 1931, this court affirmed the judgment of the court below. The cause is here now on petition for rehearing.
We have for determination the sole question of whether or not defendant's evidence affecting the status of defendant in error, T. J. Wilson, as a holder in due course should have been stricken in the face of allegation and supporting evidence that he was not such a holder.
The bona fides as to execution and various assignments of the note are not brought in question. It is contended on behalf of Wilson that, if there was an arrangement between Sample and the initial payee that he (Sample) was not to be personally liable for the payment of the note, the (Wilson) knew nothing of such an arrangement before he purchased the note. It is also contended that, a promissory note being a 'courier without luggage, whose countenance is its passport,' the mere addition of the word 'agent' or 'trustee' to the name of the obligor without disclosing his principal's identity does not exempt him from personal liability on the note. Section 4694, Revised General Statutes of 1920 (section 6780, Compiled General Laws of 1927).
In the abstract this contention is sound and inescapable, but in the case at bar the question of whether or not Wilson was a holder in due course was clearly put in issue, and, being done, that fact became one for the determination of a jury.
Ordinarily the presumption is that Wilson acquired the note in good faith, and, that being true, he was a holder in due course. This presumption, however, may be impeached, and when it is and evidence is offered to prove that the note was not acquired in good faith, the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Second Nat. Bank of North Miami
...1965, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 351, 350 F.2d 729, 731; Walsh v. Lockart Associates, 5 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 417; accord, Sample v. Wilson, 1931, 101 Fla. 818, 134 So. 549 (on rehearing), rev'g 101 Fla. 818, 139 So. 144; Baum v. Spector, Fla.Ct.App.1968, 211 So.2d 228; see Commissioner v. Duberstein, ......
-
Sample v. Hundred Lakes Corp.
... ... preponderance of the evidence that it took the note in good ... faith and for value ... On ... motion, the court directed a verdict in favor of the ... plaintiff ... We ... might well dispose of this case by order of reversal on ... authority of Sample v. Wilson, 101 Fla. 818, 134 So ... 549, 139 So. 144, as the only question presented which we ... will discuss, and which is the one controlling question in ... this case, is whether or not the facts and circumstances ... shown by the evidence indicating lack of good faith in the ... acquisition of the ... ...
- Cline v. Cline
-
Alropa Corporation v. Myers
...5 Har. 175, 176; Freeman v. Sutton, 3 Houst. 264; Bland v. Fidelity Trust Co., 71 Fla. 499, 71 So. 630, L.R.A.1916F, 209; Sample v. Wilson, 101 Fla. 818, 134 So. 549, 139 So. 144; Phoenix Mortgage & Loan Co. v. Martin, 102 Fla. 1061, 136 So. 673; Durham v. Meyer, 114 Fla. 594, 154 So. 702. ......