Court Opinion

ID: 9864526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:48:47.88329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:22.353261
License: Public Domain

THE COURT
On application for a hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal of the first appellate district, division one.
From an inspection of the record it seems clear that as suggested by the district court of appeal in its opinion, there is not sufficient support in the evidence for the conclusion that plaintiff or its assignor relied upon the affidavit attached to the bond in extending credit, and that, as said by the district court of appeal, “the real fact, as shown by the evidence, is that they inspected the record for *92information as to who the sureties were, and relied upon the bond only in connection with an independent investigation of their worth and financial standing. ’ ’ This being the situation, the finding substantially to the effect that the plaintiff and his assignor relied in giving credit upon such affidavit and the certificate of the notary that the same had been subscribed and sworn to before him is not sufficiently sustained by the evidence, with the result that the matter complained of was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s loss. In so far as the opinion of the district court of appeal holds or implies that the notary’s default could not be the proximate cause of the loss, notwithstanding reliance is placed on the affidavit and notary’s certificate in extending credit we withhold our approval, without expressing any opinion thereon, and leaving the matter open for determination on the new trial.
The application for a hearing in this court is denied.
Angellotti, C. J., Shaw, J., Lennon, J., and Kerrigan, J., pro tern., concurred.
Lawlor, 'J., Wilbur, J., and Olney, J., dissented from the order denying the hearing.