Couch v. Graham

Supreme Court of Florida

Couch v. Graham

150 So. 730, 112 Fla. 608, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2321

DecidedNovember 10, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 730 (Couch v. Graham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Couch v. Graham, 150 So. 730, 112 Fla. 608, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2321 (Fla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case .judgment was entered in favor of the defendant upon verdict rendered by a jury trying the issues presented by joinder of issue on pleas to declaration.

. The pleas were not attacked by demurrer- of motion to strike.

• The controlling question presented is whether or not the note constituting the cause of action was delivered to the payee named therein under authority of the maker. The record shows that the note was delivered to the plaintiff payee long after the maturity date thereof and there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain .the plea denying the delivery, by the defendant or with his authority, and ownership of the note by” the plaintiff, dependent upon an authorized delivery. In view of the fact that this issue appears to have been determined by the jury adversely to *609 the plaintiff, and the trial court having denied a motion for a new trial, we should not disturb the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

In this case .judgment was entered in favor of the defendant upon verdict rendered by a jury trying the issues presented by joinder of issue on pleas to declaration.

. The pleas were not attacked by demurrer- of motion to strike.

• The controlling question presented is whether or not the note constituting the cause of action was delivered to the payee named therein under authority of the maker. The record shows that the note was delivered to the plaintiff payee long after the maturity date thereof and there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain .the plea denying the delivery, by the defendant or with his authority, and ownership of the note by” the plaintiff, dependent upon an authorized delivery. In view of the fact that this issue appears to have been determined by the jury adversely to *609 the plaintiff, and the trial court having denied a motion for a new trial, we should not disturb the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 730, 112 Fla. 608, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/couch-v-graham-fla-1933.