Case Name: BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellant, v. Nathan NEWMAN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1964-04-07
Citations: 163 So. 2d 333
Docket Number: No. 63-504
Parties: BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellant, v. Nathan NEWMAN, Appellee.
Judges: Before HORTON, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 163
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellant, v. Nathan NEWMAN, Appellee.
No. 63-504.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
April 7, 1964.
Frank, Weston & Strelkow, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Nathan Newman, Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.
Before HORTON, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
HENDRY, Judge.
Defendant appeals a summary final judgment entered against it by one of the judges of the Civil Court of Record for Dade County, Florida.
The appellee is a depositor in the appellant-bank. Appellee drew a check on the appellant-bank, payable to "Samuel Ross and Frances Ross". Samuel Ross took that check, signed his wife's (Frances') name to the check, and had appellant cash it. Appellee instituted the instant action against the bank for paying the check based on a forged indorsement of the wife, one of the joint payees. The trial court granted appellee summary judgment against the bank for the face amount of the check.
Appellant, inter alia, claims error on the part of the trial court, in that, it denied appellant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We agree.
Appellee instituted this action against the bank, but nowhere does the amended complaint allege any loss sustained. There is no statement to the effect that the debt, for which the check was given, was not collected.
It is fundamental that a person is not entitled to recover damages if he has suffered no injury. Appellee's amended complaint does not in any way allege an unsuccessful attempt to collect the debt. Insofar as the record shows, appellee could have already discounted the note, and be recovering twice. The appellee's failure to allege that he has been damaged by the bank's act renders the amended complaint subject to dismissal.
In view of the above we do not reach nor decide the other questions raised in the briefs.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and remanded to the trial court for the entry of an order dismissing the amended complaint, without prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action.
Reversed and remanded.
. 9 Fla.Jur., Damages § 5; 15 Am.Jur., Damages § 3.
. Salomon v. The Pioneer Co-Operative Company, 21 Fla. 374 (1885); Denver Elec. & Neon Serv. Corp. v. Gerald H. Phipps, Inc., 143 Colo. 530, 354 P.2d 618 (1960); 10 Am.Jur .2d, Banks § 555.