United States v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 17 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 506-M. |
| Citation | 58 F. Supp. 663 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BRYANT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Herbert S. Phillips, U. S. Atty., of Tampa, Fla., and Ernest L. Duhaime, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
Robert C. Lane, of Miami, Fla., for defendant.
Complaint in this case was filed based on a promissory note, and answer was filed. The plaintiff moved to strike the answer and for summary judgment, and the defendant moved to make complaint more definite and for better bill of particulars. The Court has struck the answer, allowing further time to file an amended answer. The Court also denied the defendant's motion for more definite and better bill of particulars. Further answer was filed. The sufficiency of this answer is now before the Court on the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment.
This motion has been argued before the Court and written briefs submitted, the last of which was submitted on January 9, 1945.
The complaint alleges the following:
(a) That defendant on November 4, 1935, made a written financial and credit statement to Shop Equipment Finance Corporation, incident to the application for credit for the furnishing and installation of certain equipment by the contractor, Joseph Weidenhoff, Inc., to be located on property in Dade County, Florida, owned by the defendant.
(b) On December 12, 1935, the defendant executed his promissory note payable to the order of Joseph Weidenhoff, Inc., for $1586.52, payable in 36 monthly installments, the first to become due on January 2, 1936, the note being executed in and being payable at a bank in Dade County, Florida. On the face of this note it appears that the note was secured by a conditional sales contract.
(c) The conditional sales contract was executed November 22, 1935, between Joseph Weidenhoff, Inc., as seller, and the defendant Bryant, as buyer. The right of and title to the property sold were to remain in the seller until the buyer had fulfilled his obligation set forth in the agreement, at which time the seller was to deliver to the buyer a bill of sale. The seller within a reasonable time after the execution of the agreement was to deliver the goods into the possession of the buyer, and the buyer was to have the right to hold the possession during the period covered by the agreement, unless the seller repossessed the property in the meantime for causes set forth in the agreement of sale.
(d) On November 22, 1935, Joseph Weidenhoff, Inc., assigned its rights under the conditional sales contract to Shop Equipment Finance Corporation.
(e) On the reverse side of the note an assignment without recourse was executed by Joseph Weidenhoff, Inc. The date of this endorsement on the back of the note is not given.
(f) Shop Equipment Finance Corporation endorsed the note in blank, and thereafter Industrial Modernization Corporation without recourse endorsed the note to the Federal Housing Administration, acting on behalf of the United States of America. Also on the reverse side of the contract of sale Industrial Modernization Corporation sold or assigned its rights under the contract to the Federal Housing Administration's administrator, without recourse, representation or warranty.
The complaint avers that the note, prior to the due date of any installment payment date, was endorsed by the payee to Shop Equipment Finance Corporation, which corporation in turn endorsed the same to Industrial Modernization Corporation. This allegation is construed as an averment that both the endorsement to Shop Equipment Finance Corporation and to Industrial Modernization Corporation were on a date prior to the due date of any installment on the note, and this conclusion is warranted because the assignment of the contract by Shop Equipment Finance Corporation to Industrial Modernization Corporation was of the date of January 13, 1936, and the first installment due date was not until January 22, 1936.
The plaintiff became the assignee of the note after maturity, but the plaintiff is entitled to have its rights determined as standing in the shoes of its endorser, Industrial Modernization Corporation, if Industrial Modernization Corporation was a holder for value before maturity. Under the law, such rights accrued to the Government even though the Government became an assignee after maturity.
Counsel have extensively briefed the case. They have not specifically briefed the question of whether or not the law of Florida governs. The brief of the plaintiff is submitted as if the general law governed, while the brief of the defendant is prepared on the basis of Florida law governing.
This was a negotiable instrument, executed and made payable in Florida by a citizen of Florida to a corporation of Illinois. The Government did not become the owner of this instrument sued on until after maturity. Jurisdiction of this Court is not dependent upon diversity, but the fact that the United States is suing a citizen of Florida is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction and venue. I am of the opinion that insofar as the law incident to negotiable instruments is applied that the law of Florida governs, and so hold in rendering this opinion. The result is that according to the law of Florida, the ruling goes for the plaintiff, the Government, and there is no occasion to have counsel submit briefs on this question of what law should govern. If the decision went for the defendant on the matter now before the Court, I would grant the Government the right to present views on this particular question of law.
As above stated, the Government as plaintiff in this case is entitled to all the rights and benefits enjoyed by its immediate endorser, and if Industrial Modernization Corporation is entitled to recover as against this defendant, then the Government, though a purchaser after maturity, is entitled to recover.
The defenses advanced by the defendant do not specifically charge that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Board of Public Instruction for Sumter County
...142 Fla. 628, 196 So. 206. For the proposition that these derivative rights inure to a purchaser after maturity, see United States v. Bryant, D.C.Fla., 58 F.Supp. 663, affirmed 5 Cir., 157 F.2d In view of the finding by the trial court that the plaintiff Wright acquired the warrants from Un......
-
Whitehall Realty Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co.
...followed by the majority of courts. See also B. L. E. Realty Corp. v. Shepard, 1932, 107 Fla. 380, 144 So. 880; United States v. Bryant, D.C.S.D.Fla.1945, 58 F.Supp. 663, 8 Am.Jur., Bills & Notes, Sec. 401; Annotation 1935, 100 A.L.R. 1357; Britton, Bills & Notes, Sec. 108 (1934); Brannon, ......
- United States v. 11,118 SQUARE FEET AND 1,100 SQUARE FEET OF LAND IN FIFTH WARD OF CITY OF JOHNSTOWN, CAMBRIA COUNTY, PA., Civil Actions No. 1543
-
Bryant v. United States, 11592.
...Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and WALLER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The Court below wrote an exhaustive opinion in this case United States v. Bryant, 58 F.Supp. 663 which we think correctly announced the law applicable to the undisputed facts. Since the case involves no new or novel question ......