MADDOX GROCERY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
L. E. HAY, RECEIVER, AND CARR BROTHERS, A COPARTNERSHIP, COMPOSED OF J. A. CARR AND A. S. CARR, SOMETIMES TRADING AS LIBERTY NAVAL STORES COMPANY, DEFENDANTS 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.
Maddox Grocery Company sought to review an order directing delivery of Carr Brothers' property seized by sheriffs to a federal receiver. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the federal district court's prior jurisdiction over the res gave it exclusive control to the exclusion of the state court's attachment proceeding.
The court affirmed the lower court's order, holding that between courts of coordinate jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction of the subject matter should be permitted to retain it, and a court rightfully possessing or controlling property involved in litigation may exercise exclusive jurisdiction over that property to the exclusion of other concurrent courts.
“It is a familiar principle, that as betwéen courts of coordinate jurisdiction, the one 'first acquiring' jurisdiction of the subject-matter' should, as a general rule, be permitted to retain it.”
Establishes the foundational principle governing jurisdiction between courts of equal authority over the same property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarr Brothers' property was the subject of litigation in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida, which issued a decree on Jun…
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 Attachment cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
To review the following order entered in this cause writ of error was taken from this court:
“That the Sheriff of Franklin County, Florida, be and he is hereby directed to forthwith deliver to the said L. E. Hay, as Receiver, all of the properties of Carr Brothers in Franklin County, Florida, seized by him, the said Sheriff of Franklin County, Florida, and that the Sheriff of Liberty County, Florida, be and he is hereby directed to forthwith deliver to the said L. E. Hay, as Receiver, all of the properties of said Carr Brothers in Liberty County, Florida, seized by the said Sheriff in Liberty County, Florida, and that they, and each of them do take the receipt of said Receiver for the said property so seized and delivered to him and file the same with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Florida.”
Construed as a final determination of the attachment proceeding, this order is such a final judgment as may be reviewed by writ of error. Williams v. Hutchinson, 26 Fla. 513, 7 South. Rep. 852; Jeffreys v. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536.
The transcript of the record contains no bill of exceptions. The findings of the trial court, therefore, upon material facts must be accepted as true. From the order it appears that the court found “that the District Court for the Northern District of Florida had taken jurisdiction of the res prior to the issuance and levy of the writ of attachment in this cause, and that subsequently by the decree of June 3rd, 1922, the Said District Court of the United States directed the receiver appointed by it to take possession of said properties; and that the writ of attachment issued' in this cause was issued on the 18th day of May and executed by seizure of the said properties of said Carr Brothers by the Sheriff of Franklin County, Florida, in said county on May 19th, 1922, and by the Sheriff of Liberty County, Florida, by the seizure of the properties of said Carr Brothers in Liberty County, Florida, on May 25th, 1922; and that this c#urt being of the opinion that jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States, by reason of the facts submitted, was prior to that of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Florida. ’ ’
It is a familiar principle, that as betwéen courts of coordinate jurisdiction, the one 'first acquiring' jurisdiction of the subject-matter' should, as a general rule, be permitted to retain it. Ray v. Williams Phosphate Co., 59 Fla. 598, 52 South. Rep.
589. And a court which has in its rightful possession or under its control property involved in litigation may exercisé jurisdiction over such property to the exclusion of all other courts, and another court of concurrent jurisdiction cannot interfere and wrest from it the jurisdiction first obtained. 15 C. J. p. 1140; Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Lake St. R. R. Co., 177 U. S. 51; McKinney v. Landon, 209 Fed. 300; Mound City Co. v. Castelman, 187 Fed. 921; Richmond v. Consolidated Gas Co., 100 N.
Y. Sup. 81; State v. Fredlock, 52 W. Va. 232, 43 S.
E. Rep. 153; Ryan v. Donley, 69 Neb. 623, 96 N. W.
234. As to when and under what circumstances the jurisdiction of the first court does in fact attach so as to give it exclusive control of the property sought to be subjected, there is a contrariety of opinion. But in this case that question is not presented. The court below found the fact to be that “the District Court for :the Northern District of Florida had taken jurisdiction of the res prior to the issuance and levy of the writ of attachment in this cause.” Upon what showing this finding of fact is based, this court is not _ informed. In the .oral argument it was stated' that one of the' objects of the suit in the Federal Court was to enforce an asserted lien .against the property, and-that an order enjoining its sale or disposition had been entered prior-to the attachment •of this action.
Accepting as true, as we must, the finding of fact of the trial court, an application of the principle announced requires an affirmance of the judgment.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schwartz v. DeLOACH, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ice is for the court in which the second action is brought not to dismiss such action, but to suspend proceedings therein until the first action is tried and determined. 94 Fla. at 826, 114 So. at 551. Accord Mattox Grocery Co. v. Hay, 87 Fla. 492, 100 So. 747 (1924). More than once, Florida courts have granted certiorari to quash orders declining to stay cases in favor of prior actions pending in other jurisdictions. Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review di…
-
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. FRY, 693 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…before that court to the exclusion of any other court until the final disposition of their cause there. See Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla.1952); Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So. 2d 842, 844-45 (1943); Maddox Grocery Co. v. Hay, 87 Fla. 492, 494, 100 So. 747, 747 (1924); Florida Ins. Guar. Assoc., Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 547 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 554 So. 2d 1167 (1989); Royal Globe, 358 So. 2d at 229; Coon v. Abner, 246 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); see al…
-
Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…appellant’s life expectancy may well have expired. Appellee seeks comfort in A. J. Armstrong Co. v. Romanach, Fla.App.3d 1964, 165 So. 2d 817; Blake v. Blake, Fla.App.3d 1965, 172 So. 2d 9 and Maddox Grocery Co. v. Hay, Sup.Ct.Fla.1924, 87 Fla. 492,100 So. 747. Those cases are clearly distinguishable and are not here controlling. REVERSED. BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur. SMITH, J., dissents without opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co. v. Lake St. Elevated R.R. Co, 177 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1900)
- Williams v. Hutchinson, 26 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1890)
- Jeffreys v. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1884)
- Ray v. Williams Phosphate Co., 59 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1910)