DOROTHY CONNER SHANK, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND AND NEXT FRIEND, WILLIAM C. SHANK, APPELLANTS,
v.
W. H. TUNNICLIFFE, AS LIQUIDATOR OF THE STATE BANK OF ORLANDO & TRUST COMPANY, OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA, 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.
This case involves a depositor seeking to have her bank deposit classified as a preferred claim after the bank failed. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, denying the preferred claim status.
No, the depositor is not entitled to have her claim classified as a preferred claim under these circumstances.
“The State Bank of Orlando and Trust Company failed and was taken in charge by Appellee as Liquidator in August, 1929.”
Establishes the context of the bank's failure and the appointment of a liquidator.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Bank of Orlando and Trust Company failed in August 1929, and the appellant had a balance of $12,046.67 in her savings account. She filed a p…
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.
The State Bank of Orlando and Trust Company failed and was taken in charge by Appellee as Liquidator in August, 1929. Appellant had a balance of $12,046.67 in the savings department at the time said bank closed and filed her proof of claim with the liquidator as *607the law directs without designating it as a common claim or a preferred claim. The liquidator classified it as a common claim. This suit was brought more than twelve months after the appointment of the liquidator to have it decreed to be a preferred claim and paid as such, a motion to dismiss the bill was granted and this appeal is from that decree.
The record and brief of counsel have been examined and the final decree below is affirmed on authority of Court-right vs. Tunnicliffe, 104 Fla. 720, 140 So. 777.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J. and Whitfield and Davis, J.J., concur.
Terrell and Brown, J. J., dissent.
Ellis, J., absent on account of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE Cnty. OIL Co., Inc. v. Marshall, 98 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)…ment appealed from must be and the same is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. STURGIS, C. J., and O’CONNELL, STEPHEN C., A. J., concur. . E.g.: Terranova v. Stearns, 108 Fla. 21, 141 So. 597, 145 So. 256; Collins Ave. & Ocean Investment Co. v. Crawford, 114 Fla. 469, 154 So. 211; Southern Liquor Distributors, Inc. v. Kaiser, 150 Fla. 52, 7 Solid 600. . See: Mizner Land Corp. v. Abbott, 128 Fla. 489, 175 So. 507. . Hart v. Grim, 8 Cir., 179 F. 2d 3…
-
Smith v. Otto L. Reddish Ad Litem of the Estate of Blanche Reddish, 113 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1933)…s.” To further support his contention that the' claim brought in question must be filed with the liquidator as the quoted statute directs, appellant relies on Courtright v. Tunnicliffe, 104 Fla. 720, 140 So. 777; Shank v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 606, 145 So. 256; Duncan v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 664, 145 So. 877; Willmer v. Newsome, 110 Fla. 272, 149 So. 3. It is true that these cases all relate to preferred claims, in which the foregoing statute was construed but none of them present or involve a claim para…
-
Willmer v. Newsom, 110 Fla. 272 (Fla. 1933)…would extend the time for filing claims when the language of the statute in that respect is plain and unambiguous and the meaning clear and unmistakable,” The allegations in the bill of c’omplaint in the case of Shank v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 606, 145 So. 256, were quite similar to those in the Courtright case and the ruling in the Courtright case was applied and controlled the decision of the later case. The purpose of such statute to expedite the liquidation of banks and the harm consequent upon delay…
Authorities Cited
- Courtright v. Tunnicliffe, 104 Fla. 720 (Fla. 1932)