Ingham v. Price

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ingham v. Price

332 So. 2d 646, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1025

StatusPublished

This text of 332 So. 2d 646 (Ingham v. Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ingham v. Price, 332 So. 2d 646, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14437 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from an adverse final judgment and order denying their motion for a new trial entered pursuant to an action brought by appellee as an accommodation endorser on a note which appellants, as makers, failed to pay when due. Appel-lee was forced to pay the amount of the note to the promisee bank after it had obtained a judgment against both him and appellants.

We have carefully considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated by appellants. See, e. g., Fernandez v. Arocha, Fla.App.1975, 308 So.2d 45; Wrains v. Rose, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 75; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706; Morris v. Truax, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 515, and see 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 314 and 316. Therefore, for the reason stated and upon the authorities cited, the final judgment and order appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from an adverse final judgment and order denying their motion for a new trial entered pursuant to an action brought by appellee as an accommodation endorser on a note which appellants, as makers, failed to pay when due. Appel-lee was forced to pay the amount of the note to the promisee bank after it had obtained a judgment against both him and appellants.

We have carefully considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated by appellants. See, e. g., Fernandez v. Arocha, Fla.App.1975, 308 So.2d 45; Wrains v. Rose, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 75; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706; Morris v. Truax, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 515, and see 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 314 and 316. Therefore, for the reason stated and upon the authorities cited, the final judgment and order appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 So. 2d 646, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingham-v-price-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack