32:T511,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Gardner Lumber Co. v. Bank of Commerce, 73 Fla. 246","datePublished":"1917-02-02","legislationDate":"1917-02-02","citation":"Gardner Lumber Co. v. Bank of Commerce, 73 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1917)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of Florida","description":"Read the full text of Gardner Lumber Co. v. Bank of Commerce (Gardner Lumber Co. v. Bank of Commerce, 73 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1917)). This legal opinion, filed in 1917-02-02, from the Supreme Court of Florida discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/gardner-lumber-co-v-bank--4919259"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/gardner-lumber-co-v-bank--4919259","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Gardner Lumber Co. v. Bank of Commerce, Supreme Court of Florida, Gardner Lumber Co. v. Bank of Commerce, 73 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1917)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T41a, Per Curiam.

The Bank of Commerce' brought an action against the Gardner Lumber Company, a copartnership on two 'promissory notes executed by the latter payable to the bank. Issue was joined on a plea of failure of consideration. At the trial the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff on which judgment was rendered and the defendants took writ of error.

On the issue the plaintiff having- the general affirmative was entitled to open and conclude the presentation of the cause. As there was some substantial evidence tending to prove the issue of failure of consideration, *247the cause should have been submitted to the jury for their consideration; therefore it was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff, for which error the judgment is reversed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ-, concur.

Shackleford; J., took no part.