Skip to main content
· 1/15/1901

Robinson v. Aird

Citations

  • 43 Fla. 30

Syllabus

<p>1. A count ini a declaration alleging- that a third person executed his certain promissory note payable to the order of defendant; that defendant endorsed and delivered said note toa certain bank whereby she promised to pay the bank $100 for attorneys’fees in the event the note was not paid at maturity, and was-placed in the hands of an attorney for collection; that the note was rot paid at maturity and had been placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, does not show a liability for attorneys’ fees on the part of defendant to the bank or to one claiming through it.</p> <p>2. An ordinary endorsement of a note, does not carry with it an original obligation to pay attorneys’ fees for collecting the note, and without notice of its dishonor the endorser will not be liable'upon such endorsement for attorneys’ fees stipulated in the face of the note to be paid by the maker.</p> <p>3. To charge a party with notice of the dishonor of a bill or note because notice was given to another person as his agent, it must be shown that it was within the scope of the agent’s authority to receive such notice.</p> <p>4. Where the declaration in an action against án endorser alleges that due notice of the dishonor of the note sued upon was given defendant, and defendant’s plea puts this allegation in issue, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove notice.</p> <p>5. Depositors in savings banks organized under the laws of this State are creditors of the bank and have the same rights as depositors in other banks.</p> <p>6. Section 2193 Revised Statutes is directed against certain transactions taking place after the commission of an act of insolvency by banks, or in contemplation thereof, made with a view to the preference of one creditor to another. Where a party owes the bank a note and also has a credit to-his deposit account for deposits made while the bank is solvent and not in contemplation of its insolvency, and the bank officials and such party, after the bank be

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • reviewing the probate court’s denial of an application for letters testamentary because the application was not filed within the one year statute of limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.