St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle
| Decision Date | 04 November 1913 |
| Citation | 63 So. 445,66 Fla. 303 |
| Parties | ST. PETERSBURG NOVELTY WORKS .v BATTLE et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
Action by E. L. Battle and another, joined by their respective husbands, against the St. Petersburg Novelty Works, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Pleas duly verified and filed, violative of no statute or rule of court, should not, in general, be stricken from the file unless wholly irrelevant, inapplicable, or trifling.
The statutory form for declarations on promissory notes is not subject to demurrer.
The limited defenses under the Negotiable Instrument Law as against holders for value do not apply when the note remains in the hands of the payee until after maturity.
COUNSEL R. L. Anderson, of Ocala, and T. M. Shackleford Jr., of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Dayton & Dayton, of Dade City, and James Booth, of St. Petersburg, for defendants in error.
In an action on a promissory note, given by the St. Petersburg Novelty Works to E. L. and L. M. Battle, the corporation interposed in due course various pleas and defenses as equitable grounds, which were stricken by the court, and final judgment upon the note was then entered.
The defensive matter so sought to be pleaded will be restated briefly.
The note was given as a periodical payment for logs delivered by the Battles under a contract to deliver each month for 12 months 200,000 feet of lumber of certain specifications at $10 per 1,000 feet; that the contract was originally made by the husbands, G. C. and F. S. Battle, but transferred by them to their wives, to whom this note was made payable; that the transfer was a mere sham, and that the husbands continued to be the real parties in interest and control; that during the life of the contract and after the giving of the note the husbands, who are insolvent, willfully breached the contract, the market price of lumber having advanced considerably beyond the contract price, thereby entailing a loss upon the defendant corporation far in excess of the amount involved in the note in this action.
The pleas may be defective in form, and may also be faulty in asking for a judgment over as against the husbands, the nominal plaintiffs; but such aspects and faults may be subject to attack by demurrer, or be remedied by compulsory amendment, but we do not find them so wholly bad as to warrant the drastic remedy applied.
We have frequently pointed out the distinctions in practice to be observed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Randall v. Mickle
... ... Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 ... So. 545; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 ... Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; So. Turpentine ... ...
-
Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co. v. Automobile Ins. Co.
... ... Moreover, ... the Supreme Court of Florida, in St. Petersburg, etc., v ... Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So. 445, held that the statutory ... ...
-
Batchelder v. Prestman
... ... [103 Fla. 852] Cook, Blanchard & Hoffman, of St. Petersburg, ... for plaintiff in error ... Booth & ... Dickinson, of St ... McIver v. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 ... So. 545; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 ... Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; Southern Home Ins. Co. v ... ...
-
Tropicana Pools, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank of Titusville
...2 A.L.R.3d 1151.3 Dade-Commonwealth Title Ins. Co. v. Biscayne Kennel Club, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 713; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So. 445. The reasoning of the decisions supporting the view that a payee may not be a holder in due course is that Section 5......