MIAMI BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK T. BUDGE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND H. R. CHASE, AS SHERIFF, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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.
Miami Bank & Trust Company appealed the dismissal of its bill in equity seeking to enjoin enforcement of a garnishment judgment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Miami Bank had assigned a $24,450 note to City National Bank before the garnishment was served, and therefore was neither the owner nor holder of the note at issue.
Miami Bank was not the owner or holder of the note at the time of garnishment because it had assigned the note to City National Bank & Trust Company of Miami prior to service of the writ. Therefore, the dismissal of Miami Bank's bill in equity was proper.
“the note for $24,450.00 executed by W. P. Morang & Son Co., Inc., was delivered to City National Bank and Trust Company of Miami and was in possession of that institution”
Establishes that the note had been transferred out of Miami Bank's possession and control
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 9, 1926, Miami Bank & Trust Company held a $24,450 promissory note from W. F. Morang & Son Co., Inc. On May 18, 1926, Frank T. Budge Company …
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 Equitable Setoff cases and more on FLexlaw
On March 9, 1926, W. F. Morang & Son Co., Inc., a Florida Corporation, executed a note in the sum of $24,450.00 to Miami Bank & Trust Company. On the 18th day of May, 1926, Frank T. Budge Company sued W. F. Morang & Son Co., Inc., and procured the service of writ of garnishment on Miami Bank & Trust Company. On the 7th day of June, 1926, Miami Bank & Trust Company filed its answer in Garnishment in which it alleged that it was indebted to W. F. Morang & Son Co., Inc., in the sum of $3,832.82; that it held for collection for the credit of W. F. Morang & Sons Co., Inc., collateral promissory *582notes aggregating $10,750.00 and that the garnishee held notes against W. F. Morang & Sons Co., Inc., in the sum of $24,450.00 secured by a mortgage, etc.
Final judgment was entered against the principal debtor and the garnishee. Thereafter, Miami Bank & Trust Company filed its bill in equity to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment against it as garnishee, claiming the amount of the deposit in favor of W. P. Morang & Sons Co., Inc., as an equitable setoff against the judgment.
The final decree dismissed the bill of complaint.
Appeal was taken to this Court.
One of the issues presented by the answer was the ownership of the note of W. P. Morang & Son Co., Inc., to Miami Bank & Trust Company dated March 9, 1926, for the sum of $24,450.00 and payable ninety days next after date. The answer denied that Miami Bank & Trust Company was the owner and holder of the note on the date of the service of the writ of garnishment, or at any time thereafter.
There was introduced in evidence a certain agreement made and entered into on the 19th day of June, 1926, between Miami Bank & Trust Company and the City National Bank & Trust Company of Miami, a corporation organized and doing business under an Act of Congress, relating to National Banks, under and by which Miami Bank & Trust Company set over and assigned to City National Bank & Trust Company of Miami certain property. Section 1-b of that agreement includes the following:
“All cash, bills receivable, accounts receivable, commercial paper, notes, bonds, mortgages and other securities or evidences of indebtedness, payable to or owned by and shown upon the books of the Miami Bank & Trust Company, except such of said assets of the aggregate book or face value of $900,000.00 a's shall be included in a schedule to be made up by the City National Bank & Trust Company of Miami, and to be hereto attached and made a part hereof and marked ‘Schedule A,’ and identified by the signature of C. D. Leffler and *583Clark B. Davis, but subject however, to the right of substitution of securities as hereinafter provided;”
The evidence showed that the note for $24,450.00 executed by W. P. Morang & Son Co., Inc., was delivered to City National Bank and Trust Company of Miami and was in possession of that institution. The evidence showed that no “schedule A” as provided for in the above quoted paragraph of the contract was either prepared or identified as therein provided. Therefore, it appearing that the $24,-450.00 note of W. P. Morang Sons Co., Inc., being an asset in the hands of Miami Bank & Trust Company on the 19th day of June, 1926, the Chancellor was justified in finding that it was assigned and delivered to' City National Bank & Trust Company of Miami and was therefore neither owned nor held by the complainant at the date of the institution of the suit. As this finding is justified by the record, we may assume that such was the finding of the Chancellor and, therefore, we cannot say from the state of the record that the Chancellor committed error in dismissing the bill of complaint, for which reason the decree appealed from should be affirmed without discussion of other questions attempted to be raised which should be considered and discussed, were it not for the fact that it appears the decree must be affirmed because of this aspect of the case. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in the conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alter v. Finesmith, 214 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…before this action was instituted, a finding that the cause was not barred by laches would be justified. We must therefore assume that the trial judge found the defense of laches to be without merit. Cf. Miami Bank & Trust Co. v. Frank T. Budge Co., 107 Fla. 581, 145 So. 192 (1933). Having examined the record in the light of each point presented and finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment. Affirmed. . All assignments of error not argued under one of those points must bo deemed abandoned. See…
-
Modine Mfg. Co. v. Israel, 294 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…and attempted to regain possession of the goods before payment was due. This court will not reverse a finding of the trier of fact if the finding is supported by any reasonable view of the evidence. See Miami Bank & Trust Co. v. Frank T. Budge Co., 107 Fla. 581, 145 So. 192 (1933). The award of $39,805.65 to ABC and $6,773.41 to Blizzard, which represents the value of the goods at the time that they were replevied, cannot be sustained since neither appellee has ever paid for the goods. The record shows th…
-
Data Lease Fin. Corp. v. Barad, 291 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1974)…the absence of such express ruling, it is presumed that the matter was resolved in a manner consistent with the judgment rendered, in accordance with the general presumption of correctness of judgments. Miami Bank & Trust Co. v. Frank T. Budge Co., 107 Fla. 581, 145 So. 192 (1933); White v. Crandall, 105 Fla. 70, 137 So. 272, 143 So. 871 (1932); Tanner v. Batson, 123 Fla. 240, 166 So. 545 (1936); Dade County v. Pepper, 168 So. 2d 198 (Fla.App.3d 1964). A presumption exists that the lower court did all thin…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence