Bland v. Fidelity Trust Co.

Citations

• 71 Fla. 499

Syllabus

<p>1. An endorsement of payment on an instrument promising to pay money has no moré validity or effect than a receipt, and the addition of such an endorsement does not have the effect of vitiating the instrument.</p> <p>2. The knowledge afforded by mere endorsements of partial payments on a negotiable note as of the date of its issue do not make the purchase of the note “amount to bad faith.”</p> <p>3. Where there is no evidence of a'defect in the title of a payee to a negotiable note, a presumption exists in favor of an endorsee as a holder in due course. N</p> <p>4. If error be committed in excluding evidence affecting the title of the payees of a negotiable note, which evidence would put upon the plaintiff holders the burden of proving that they “acquired the title as a holder in due course,” such error, if any, may not be harmful where proof is made that the plaintiff is a holder in due course.</p> <p>5. If a mere credit upon the books of a bank does not of itself amount to the payment of a valuable consideration, the withdrawal by check of a substantial part of the amount so credited is such payment.</p> <p>6. Where there is no opposing evidence, it is not necessary to submit the case to the jury when the evidence clearly shows the right of the plaintiff to recover.</p> <p>7. When the evidence would not have supported a verdict, for the defendant, and no material or harmful error was committed in admitting or excluding evidence, a directed verdict for the plaintiff is proper.</p>