No. 67-82 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 1967
The appellants were defendants below in a suit to enforce promissory notes. They contend that the court wrongfully applied to the facts of this case the principle of law that lack of consideration is not a defense to an action upon renewal notes. See Padgett v. Lewis, 54 Fla. 177" court="Fla." date_filed="1907-06-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/padgett-v-lewis-4916927?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4916927">54 Fla. 177, 45 So. 29 (1907); Price v. Airlift International, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 549" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1966-01-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/price-v-airlift-international-inc-7416668?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7416668">181 So.2d 549, 550. A review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to support the determination of the trial judge as a trier of fact that the notes sued upon were renewal notes within the meaning of the rule of law cited.
The appellee has cross-appealed and assigned as error the failure of the trial
Affirmed.