I. B. HOOKS, W. R. HOOKS, AND J. W. RICHARDSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
FARMERS UNION WAREHOUSE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a foreclosure judgment against sureties on a forthcoming bond because the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for bonds issued in attachment proceedings, including making the bond payable to the plaintiff and properly valuing the property.
The decree against the sureties was reversed because the trial court failed to substantially comply with statutory procedures for forthcoming bonds in attachment proceedings, including requiring the bond to be payable to the plaintiff and requiring the judge to find and state the value of the property retaken by the defendant.
“when the summary right to enter judgment against sureties is invoked under the statutes, the statutory proceedings should be substantially followed; otherwise the right of jury trial may be infringed.”
Establishes the core principle that statutory procedures for forthcoming bonds must be substantially complied with to protect the right to jury trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Farmers Union Warehouse Company brought an equity action to foreclose a mortgage on personal property and growing crops given by I. B. Hooks and o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Value Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— The Farmers Union Warehouse Company brought a bill in equity to foreclose a mortgage upon personal property and growing crops, given by I. B. Hooks, and procured a writ of attachment. The defendant filed a forthcoming bond for $850.00 with W. E. Hooks and J. W. Eichardson as sureties, payable to the Governor of Florida and his successors in office, conditioned that the said I. B. Hooks shall have the property forthcoming at a time and place left in blank. A foreclosure of the mortgage was decreed, and subsequently it was decreed that “it appearing that none of the property is forthcoming to answer such decree and that the sum of $526.85 is due upon the same with interest from October 29th, 1909, it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the complainant, The Farmers Union Warehouse Company, a corporation, do have and recover from the defendant, I. B. Hooks and W. E. Hooks and J. W. Eichardson, sureties, upon the forthcoming bond, the sum of $526.85, principal, interest and costs and attorney’s fees, with interest from October 29th, 1909, to be levied of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the said defendant and sureties as above named, and that execution in due form of law be issued therefor.” An appeal from this decree was taken, and it is contended that as the statute has not been complied with the decree is erroneous.
The statute provides that property attached “may at any time be restored to the defendants.....................upon the defendant.....................giving bond to the officer levying such attachment, payable to the plaintiff with two good and sufficient sureties to be approved by such officer, in double the value of the property levied upon, such value to be fixed by the officer, conditioned for the forthcoming of the property restored, and to abide the final order of the court.” Sec. 2116 General Statutes of 1906.
It is also provided that if the defendant shall have retaken the property upon a forthcoming bond, judgment shall be entered against the sureties on the bond for the amount of the judgment against the defendant if it be less than the value of the property as fixed by the officer, or for the value of the property so fixed if such value be less than the judgment against the defendant; and that in case of a judgment against defendant after trial, judgment shall be entered against the sureties as above provided, except that the value of the property re-taken by the defendant shall be found by the judge or the jury (as the case may be tried upon the one or the other), and stated in the finding or verdict. Sec. 2128 General Statutes of 1906.
Assuming that a writ of attachment may properly issue as in this case, when the summary right to enter judgment against sureties is invoked under the statutes, the statutory proceedings should be substantially followed; otherwise the right of jury trial may be infringed. In this case the bond was not made payable to the plaintiff, and was not conditioned as required by the statute; and it does not appear that the judge found and stated in his finding the value of the property re-taken by the defendant as the statute requires.
The decree appealed from is reversed as to the sureties on the forthcoming bond.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alford v. Leonard, 88 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1925)…of the statute which specifically authorizes the entry of a judgment against the sureties upon a forthcoming bond when property has been redelivered to the defendant in foreclosure proceedings. In the case of Hooks v. Farmers’ Union Warehouse Co., 62 Fla. 496, 56 South. Rep. 501, the decree against the sureties was reversed because it was said that the bond was not payable to- the defendant and conditioned as the statute required. Section 3418, supra, is the only one in the Article relating to return of…
-
Tilghman v. The United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 90 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1925)…ep. 888. This is equally true where the property is restored to the defendant under the provisions of Section 2116, General Statutes, Section 3417, Revised General Statutes. See Section 2128, General Statutes; Hooks v. Farmers’ Union Warehouse Co., 62 Fla. 496, 56 South. Rep. 501. The following allegations of the declaration are admitted by the pleadings: First, the plaintiff instituted his action at law against Melton to enforce a perfected lien against certain sawn lumber, the property of Melton; secon…
-
Hardee v. Myakka Fruit Farms Co., 84 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1922)…by the judge or the jury (as the case may be tried before the one or the other), and stated in the finding or verdict.” The verdict in this case merely found .“for the plaintiff” without finding the value of the property as required by the statute. 62 Fla. 496. The judgment rendered against the sureties on such a verdict for the value of. the property as fixed by the officer 'in levying the distress warrant, was not in accord with the essential requirements of the law and the execution issued against the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence