CHIPLEY STATE BANK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. B. MCNEILL, RECEIVER PENSACOLA STATE BANK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Chipley State Bank sought to set off a dividend declared on stock it owned against amounts owed by the insolvent Pensacola State Bank. The Florida Supreme Court held that dividends earned after a receiver's appointment belong to the receiver for all creditors and cannot be used as set-off, as set-off rights are determined only by conditions existing at the moment of insolvency.
A bank has no right to set off a dividend declared after a receiver's appointment against a debt owed by the insolvent bank. Dividends earned by stock after it passed to the receiver belong to the receiver for the benefit of all creditors and cannot be applied by any single creditor to reduce its own claim at the expense of other creditors.
“the right of set-off against the receiver of a bank is to be governed by the state of things existing at the moment of insolvency and not by conditions thereafter created.”
Establishes the foundational principle that set-off rights are fixed at the moment of insolvency and cannot be affected by subsequent events.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Pensacola State Bank became insolvent in December 1918, and a receiver was appointed. At the time of failure, Pensacola owed Chipley State Bank mo…
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 Dividends cases and more on FLexlaw
Reaves, Circuit Judge.
— The Pensacola State Bank became insolvent and the defendant in error was appointed receiver in December, 1918. At the time of its failure the Pensacola Bank owed the Chipley State Bank and also owned capital stock of the Chipley Bank. Of course the assets of the Pensacoula Bank, including its stock in the Chipley Bank passed to the receiver for the benefit of all its creditors upon the appointment of the receiver in December, 1913.
Thereafter, and while the receiver still held' such stock, the Chipley Bank declared a dividend on all its stock for the year 1916, but refused to pay such dividend to the receiver, claiming the right to set off the amount thereof against the unpaid balance due it from the insolvent Pensacola Bank, and whether such right exists is the only question involved in this case.
If a bank becomes insolvent and a receiver is appointed for its effects, its depositors may set off the amount due ou their deposits against any amount they may owe the bank. State v, Brobston, 94 Ga. 95, 21 S. E. Rep. 146, 47 Am. St. Rep. 138; Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30, 29 South. Rep. 633.
But “the right of set-off against the receiver of a bank is to be governed by the state of things existing at the moment of insolvency and not by conditions thereafter created.” 7 C. J. §536.
The receiver represents the creditors and any dividend earned by the stock after it passed to the receiver, belonged to the receiver for the benefit of all the creditors and could not be applied by the Chipley Bank to the reduction of its own claim at the expense of other creditors of the Pensacola Bank.
The dividend was wholly earned and declared long after the reeciver was appointed and it never was the property of the insolvent bank actually or potentially, and hence could not be pleaded as a set off against this suit of the receiver. Chicago Architectural Iron Works v. McKey, 98 Ill. App. 244; Wheeling Bridge & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Cochran, 68 Fed. Rep. 141; Cook v. Cole, 55 Iowa 70, 7 N. W. Rep. 419; Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 257.
The judgment should' be affirmed.
Per Curiam.
— The record in this cause having been consideerd by this court, and the foregoing opinion, prepared under Chapter--, Acts of 1919, adopted by the court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the judgment herein be and' the same is hereby affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1933)…ainst a trust or special fund. The right of set off against the liquidator of a bank is to be governed by the state of things existing at the moment of insolvency and not by conditions created thereafter. Chipley State Bank vs. McNeill, 77 Fla. 827, 82 So. 292. Having reached this conclusion it follows that the preferred claim of appellant may be paid from the proceeds of the collateral security returned to the appellee by the Atlantic National Bank if there are no other funds in the hands of the liquida…
-
Taylor v. Prine, 101 Fla. 967 (Fla. 1931)…e mortgaged land at the time of the foreclosure sale, which evidence was taken in this case subsequent to the confirmation of said sale (See Etter v. State Bank, 76 Fla. 203, 79 So. 724; Jacksonville Loan Co. v. National Mercantile Co., 77 Fla. 825, 82 So. 292), other equitable considerations nevertheless appear in the record which support the chancellor’s action in denying a deficiency decree. It" strikingly appears that the mortgagee-complainant bought in at the foreclosure sale for $5,000.00 the same…
-
In re the Guardianship of Robert Ellsworth Firmin v. Sanborn, 119 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1935)…e money while on deposit to the guardian’s personal account augmented his credit and became liable for his personal debts. If he owed the bank [*404] at its closing any debts he could set off his accounts against them. Chipley State Bank v. McNeill, 77 Fla. 827, 82 South. Rep. 292; Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30, 29 South. Rep. 633. Chapter 14579, supra, mandatorily requires the guardian to invest the funds of the estate in such manner, or in such securities, in which the guardian has no interest as allowed…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1901)