THE TEXAS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
B. H. DAVIDSON AND JOHN B. SECKINGER, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR

Fla. | 1918-11-19
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
76 Fla. 475 Florida Supreme Court (1918) Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Texas Company sought to recover on a garnishment bond executed by Davidson and Seckinger as sureties for W.R. Fuller's release of garnished funds. The court held that because Fuller's judgment was stayed due to his bankruptcy discharge, The Texas Company did not prevail in its underlying action, and therefore the sureties were not liable on the bond.


Holding

The sureties are not liable on the bond because The Texas Company did not prevail in its action against Fuller; the stay of execution resulting from Fuller's bankruptcy relieved the principal from liability, thereby releasing the sureties from their obligation.


Key Quotes

“As The Texas Company did not prevail in their action against Fuller in the State Court, in that the enforcement of the judgment entered against Fuller was, in reference to the bankruptcy law, stayed by the terms of the judgment itself, thereby relieving the principal, the sureties on the bond are not liable.”

This quote establishes the core holding: the sureties' liability was conditioned on The Texas Company prevailing in its action, which it did not do because the judgment against Fuller was stayed and unenforceable due to bankruptcy.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Texas Company obtained a garnishment writ against Fuller's bank account in September 1910. To release the garnished funds, Fuller executed a bond …

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.


Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, J.

Whitfield, J.

The Texas Company brought an action against W. R. Fuller in the State Circuit Court and obtained a writ of garnishment therein against The First National Bank of Tampa on September 16, 1910. To release the money held by the bank under the garnishment, W. R. Fuller, as principal, and B. H. Davidson and John B. Seckinger, as sureties, executed a bond to the Texas Company conditioned that if Fuller “shall well and truly pay to The Texas Company whatever sum it may recover against him in its suit, upon which suit such writs of garnishment were issued, and shall pay all interest, together with all costs of the suit, provided the Texas Company shall prevail in and by said suit, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.” On December 6, 1910, an involuntary petition in bankrupt was filed in the Federal Court against Fuller, and on February 24, 1911, Fuller was adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt, and was discharged January 26, 1912. It also appears “that The Texas Company did in fact appear in said bankruptcy proceedings and prove its claim sued upon in the aforesaid suit as an unsecured creditor of the said W. R. Fuller before the referee in bankruptcy in said proceeding, have the said referee in bankruptcy allow the said claim, and did receive and collect a dividend upon the said claim in said bankruptcy proceedings, as therein allowed and awarded to all unsecured creditors of the said W. R. Fuller.”

On December 22, 1910, upon motion of Fuller in the action against him by The Texas Company, the court made the following order:

“It appearing from the record in this case that on the filing of the suit a writ of garnishment was sued out by the plaintiff and served on the First National Bank of Tampa, and before answer by the garnishee, a bond was given by the debtor with sureties as required by law for the release of the money or property garnisheed, and that in order to hold said sureties it is necessary for the plaintiff to reduce its demand to judgment. It is, therefore, considered by the Court that the foregoing motion be denied. It is further considered that any judgment which may be obtained in said suit shall be stayed as against the property of .the defendant, pending the adjudication in bankruptcy.”

On April 20, 1911, in the case of The Texas Company v. Fuller, the following judgment was rendered:

“It is thereupon considered by the Court that the plaintiff do have and recover of and from the defendant the said sum of $1356.14 for its damages, together with the further sum of $9.36, costs in this behalf expended.

“It is further ordered and adjudge'd that execution may issue on the said judgment against the said defendant, but that inasmuch as the said defendant has been adjudged a bankrupt by the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida since the institution of this suit, all proceedings on said execution when issued be and the same hereby are stayed as against sáid defendant.”

On August 4, 1913, The Texas Company brought an action against B. H. Davidson and John B. Seckinger or, the bond executed by them as sureties for the release of the money garnisheed. There was judgment for the defendants and The Texas Company took this writ of error. As The Texas Company did not prevail in their action against Fuller in the State Court, in that the enforcement of the judgment entered against Fuller was, in reference to the bankruptcy law, stayed by the terms of the judgment itself, thereby relieving the principal, the sureties on the bond are not liable.

Affirmed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Forrest Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1930)
    …le purpose of calling to the attention of the Court' any error, omission or oversight that may have been committed in the first consideration. Jones v. Fox 23 Fla. 462, 2 So. R. 853; Hull v. Burr 58 Fla. 475, 50 So. R. 768; Texas Company v. Davidson 76 Fla. 475, 80 So. R. 558. Rule twenty-five governing practice and procedure before this Court in effect provides that a rehearing must be applied for within thirty days from the filing of the judgment, decree or order of the Court', and the attention of the C…
  • In re Inquiry Concerning A Judge, 357 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1978)
    …ies. For the above reasons I concur with the majority in reprimanding respondent and would request the Judicial Qualifications Commission to monitor his present and future activities. ORDER Petition for rehearing is denied. Texas Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 475, 80 So. 558, State v. Green, 105 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). It is so ordered…
  • United GAS Pipe Line Co. v. Bevis, 336 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1976)
    …ENGLAND, Justice (concurring in denial). I would deny rehearing in this case in the face of the multi-page, argumentative rehearing petitions which have been filed, for the reasons set forth in Texas Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 475, 478, 80 So. 558, 559 (1918). See also Florida Appellate Rule 3.14(b), which states that a petition for rehearing shall be “without argument”. Counsel for Monsanto (7 page petition), Air Products (14 page petition), and the Public Service Commissio…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw