Camp v. First National Bank
Citations
- 44 Fla. 497
Syllabus
<p>1. In. a suit against several upon a joint cause of action one appeared but filed no pleas, others appeared and filed pleas, and the sheriff returned that another could not be found in the county. Upon application of the plaintiff and. those defendants who had filed pleas the cause was referred to a referee for trial. Thereafter the referee permitted an amendment of the sheriff’s return so as to show that the defendant mentioned therein. did not reside in the county, it being proved that such was the fact, and that the sheriff ought to have made that return in the first instance. Held, that the referee had power to permit the amendment.</p> <p>2. Under the decisions of this court in Melton v. Brown, 25 Fla. 461, 6 South. Rep. 211, and McCallum v. Driggs, 35 Fla.- 277, 17 South. Rep. 407, where it is proven that parties placed their names on the back of a note before its delivery to the payee, for the purpose of lending credit to the instrument with the payee t their signatures, and there was no understanding that their liability was not to attach until after the payee had endorsed the note, they are liable as joint makers even though it be pfoved that they wrote their names on the back of the note as sureties for the maker and without participating in the consideration for which the note was given; and the rule so announced applies even though the words “demand, protest and notice of protest waived” be written over such signatures.</p> <p>3. A bank becomes the absolute owner of money deposited with it to the general credit of a depositor, in the absence of any special agreement importing a different character into the transaction, and the relationship between the parties is simply that of .debtor..and .creditor.. ..</p> <p>4. The right of a bank to apply a depositor’s credit balance to the satisfaction of a debt due it by such depositor, is in the nature of a set off or application of payments which will not be required by law so as to benefit a surety liable for
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding estoppel principles inapplicable in this retroactive child support case when father had duty of support
- holding estoppel principles inapplicable in this retroactive child support case when father had duty of support
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.