¶1 (Concurring).—The first amended plea is not valid because it does not exclude the idea that the note was delivered by the maker but not for the purpose of transferring to her the property therein but upon the other hand affirmatively shows that property in it was transferred to her. The plea is thereupon not available under Section 6776 C. G. L. The second plea is bad for the reason that it sets up an independent contemporaneous agreement between maker and payee which is not susceptible of proof against the terms of the written instrument.
104 Fla. 294
139 So 798
Anderson v. Julia K.
Decided February 18, 1932
Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1932-02-18
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1932-02-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Jackson v. Parker (1943), 68 So. 2d 173 - Schwartz v. Zaconick (1954)
2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →