GEORGIA FERTILIZER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
P. R. PRIVITT, 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.
Georgia Fertilizer Company appealed an order dissolving an attachment in aid of foreclosure. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution, holding that the affidavit in attachment was defective because it failed to state that the affiant "does believe" the allegations, instead stating only that "he has reason to believe," which constituted a fatal defect making the attachment insufficient.
The Court held that the affidavit was fatally defective because it failed to include the language "and does believe," making it an insufficient basis for issuing the writ of attachment. The Court also clarified that Chapter 8477, Acts of 1921, amended the law to make writs of attachment in aid of foreclosure subject to motion to dissolve like other writs of attachment.
“The attachment being under the control of the Court, is not subject to attack as are Writs of Attachment at law. Proceedings for their discharge must be taken under the rules of Chancery practice.”
Establishes the historical doctrine governing attachments in aid of foreclosure, though later superseded by statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorgia Fertilizer Company obtained an attachment in aid of foreclosure against property owned by P. R. Privitt. The affidavit supporting the attachme…
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.
This cause is before us on appeal from order dissolving an attachment in aid of foreclosure.
The contention is made on authority of the opinions in the eases of Alford vs. Leonard, et al., 88 Fla. 532, 102 Sou. 885, and Tilghman vs. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, Maryland, 90 Fla. 282, 105 Sou. 823, in which former case it was said:
‘‘ The attachment being under the control of the Court, is not subject to attack as are Writs of Attachment at law. Proceedings for their discharge must be taken under the rules of Chancery practice. Therefore, one *597who wishes to have his property restored to him pending the foreclosure proceedings in which an attachment has issued but who does not wish to obligate himself by sureties unqualifiedly to pay the amount which may be adjudged to be due, applies to the Chancellor for an order directing the restoration of the property to him, The Chancellor having control of the Writ may in the exercise of his discretion direct such release upon whatever conditions or terms he may deem to' be equitable or just.”
This enunciation was followed in the latter case, which cited the former opinion with approval.
Chapter 8477, Acts of 1921, was an act to amend section 3405 and section 3411 R. G. S., and it amended section 3405 to provide that writs issued thereunder shall be subject to motion to dissolve as other writs of attachment.
Chapter 8477, Acts of 1921, appears not to have been referred to by this Court either in the case of Alford vs. Leonard et al. supra, or in the case of Tilghman vs. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., etc., supra, and we must, therefore, assume that this amendment was overlooked and not considered both by the attorneys for the parties in those suits and by this Court.
There is no question in our minds that the legislature was vested with full authority to determine and prescribe that writs of attachment in aid of foreclosure should be subject to motion to dissolve as are other writs of attachment. Therefore, it appears that if this amendment had been brought to the attention of the Court it would not have been disregarded.
In this case the affidavit in attachment was defective in that it did not state that the affiant “does believe” the allegations of the affidavit, but only states that “he has reason to believe. ’ ’ The failure to include the words ‘ ‘ and does believe” in the affidavit constitutes a fatal defect, making the affidavit insufficient as a basis upon which to issue the writ of attachment.
*598The record fails to show reversible error and, therefore, the order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Gen. Fin. Loan Co. of Miami N., 143 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…s good reason to believe that the property * *.” It is this quoted language which the appellant contends renders the affidavit insufficient as a basis for the issuance of the writ. The Supreme Court of Florida, in Georgia Fertilizer Co. v. Privett, 107 Fla. 596, 145 So. 840, was called upon to answer this same question. In concluding that an affidavit for writ of attachment in aid of foreclosure was defective, the court said: “In this case the affidavit in attachment was defective’in that it did [*690] no…
-
Gen. Fin. Loan Co. OF Miami N. v. Williams, 150 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1963)…e statutory grounds for issuance of the writ, but did not state that affiant “does believe” in the existence of the grounds alleged. In its opinion the district court relied upon the opinion of this Court in Georgia Fertilizer Co. v. Privett, 1933, 107 Fla. 596, 145 So. 840. This case is directly in point and is controlling [*441] We have carefully considered each of the cases with which the petitioner alleges conflict. We find none. The Rosen and Luciano cases, supra, involved attachments in common law a…
Authorities Cited
- Alford v. Leonard, 88 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1925)
- Tilghman v. The United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 90 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1925)