Forbes v. Fort Lauderdale Mercantile Co.

Citations

• 83 Fla. 66
• 90 So. 821

Syllabus

<p>1. In a suit upon a promissory note a plea that defendant did not promise as alleged is inapplicable and should be stricken.</p> <p>2. Where fraud is relied upon in any pleading, facts constituting such fraud should be specially pleaded and the allegations or averments with respect thereto should be specific. If this is not done such pleading will be held insufficient and upon motion will he stricken.</p> <p>3. Although fraud generally is averred as a defense to an action, if the facts averred upon which the charge of fraud is based do not constitute fraud the pleading may be stricken upon the ground that it states no defense to the action.</p> <p>4. In an action upon a promissory note a plea of want of consideration which merely avers that there was no consideration for the note is insufficient because it amounts to a plea of the general issue, which is forbidden in an action of this kind.</p> <p>5. Where a plea of want of consideration in an action on a promissory note in setting out the facts and circumstances connected with the transaction avers a contemporaneous, independent, parol agreement between the parties not sus-, ceptible of legal proof as constituting the alleged want of consideration, it will be held insufficient and upon motion will be stricken.</p> <p>6. In an action by the payee upon an unambiguous promissory note against the maker, a plea averring as a defense thereto ' a parol, contemporaneous, collateral agreement between the parties exempting’the maker from liability thereon, sets up no defense to the action and upon motion will be stricken.</p> <p>7. A party cannot, either at law or in equity, contradict or vary the terms of his written unambiguous contract by showing that notwithstanding he signed such contract it was with the understanding resting in parol that he was not to be bound by its terms, and a plea averring such defense to an action upon such written contract will upon motion be stricken because it sets up no defense to the acti