THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. ERNEST AMOS, COMPTROLLER, OF STATE OF FLORIDA, RELATOR,
v.
C. E. CHILLINGWORTH, JUDGE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a mandamus petition seeking to compel a circuit judge to exercise jurisdiction over a banking receivership confirmation. The court held that the judge was properly disqualified because he was a personal creditor of the insolvent bank, creating a direct pecuniary interest in the receivership proceedings.
The judge was properly disqualified because he had a direct pecuniary interest in the result of the receivership proceedings. A judge who is a personal creditor of a corporation cannot appoint or confirm the appointment of a receiver for that corporation, as such interest in the action's result disqualifies the judge from exercising judicial function.
“The interest which will disqualify a judge must be a pecuniary or property interest in the action or its result.”
Establishes the standard for judicial disqualification that the court applies to Judge Chillingworth's situation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Comptroller of Florida petitioned Judge Chillingworth to confirm his actions in declaring the Farmers Bank & Trust Company insolvent and appointin…
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 Pecuniary Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, J.
This is a petition in the name of the State of Florida on the relation of Ernest Amos, Comptroller of said State, for writ of mandamus against the respondent, C. E. Chillingworth, Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and^for Palm Beach County, Florida, commanding him forthwith to take jurisdiction of the petition of relator for confirmation of his actions in ascertaining that the Farmers Bank & Trust Company, a banking corporation of West Palm Beach, Florida, is insolvent, and in appointing the First American Bank & Trust Company as receiver of said Farmers Bank & Trust Company, as provided in Section 4162 of the Revised General Statutes. The petition appears to contain all of the jurisdictional averments necessary under Section 4162, but alleges that said Judge held himself disqualified and refused to act in the judicial determination of said petition for an order confirming the action of the relator and the appointment of the receiver of such banking-institution. There is attached to this petition for writ of mandamus a certified copy of said Judge’s order disqualifying himself, which gives the following reasons for his action:
“I certify that I was a depositor of the Farmers Bank & Trust Company at the time it closed its doors; that I am a creditor of said banking institution; I was not and am not now indebted to said bank; that members of my immediate family were also depositors and are now cerditors of said bank; that I was, at the time of the closing of the Farmers Bank & Trust Company, and am now, an officer and stockholder of a Florida corporation, which corporation was indebted to said bank, and did have money on deposit in said bank and was and is now the owner of two shares of the capital stock of said bank.
“I further certify that it is my belief that in passing upon the application for confirmation of the receiver, I have a property or pecuniary interest, in that I believe my ultimate dividends received in the liquidation of the bank will be increased or decreased, depending upon how I might rule with reference to the application for the confirmation of the receiver appointed by the Comptroller.”
The interest which will disqualify a judge must be a pecuniary or property interest in the action or its result. In our opinion it is quite clear that Judge Chillingworth was disqualified to exercise the judicial function in the matter set up in the petition, he having been a depositor of the Farmers Bank & Trust Company at the time it closed its doors and being a creditor of said bank at the time the Comptroller applied to him to confirm his action in holding the bank insolvent and appointing another bank as its receiver. A judge who is a creditor of a corporation is disqualified to appoint, or confirm the appointment of a receiver for such corporation. He has a direct pecuniary interest in the result of the litigation and of the receivership. Trustees I. I. Fund v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 213; Ochus v. Sheldon, Hoyt & Co., 12 Fla. 138; Sauls et al. v. Freeman et al., 24 Fla. 209, 4 So. 525; ex parte James Harris, 26 Fla. 77, 7 So. 1; State ex rel. v. Young, 31 Fla. 594, 12 So. 673; The State ex rel. Hart v. Call, 41 Fla. 442, 26 So. 1014; 33 C. J. 991-995; 15 R. C. L. 528-9. Quatman v. Superior Court (Cal.) 221 Pac. 666; Sec. 2525, Rev. Gen. Stats.
It will be observed that the facts here involved are quite different from those involved in the case of Power et ais. v. Chillingworth, decided at the January Term, 1927. There is no conflict between the holding in that case and our holding here.
This makes it unnecessary for us to pass upon the questions as to whether or not the fact that Judge Chilling-worth was an officer and a .stockholder of a corporation which was both a debtor and a creditor of said bank and which owned two shares of its capital stock, constituted a ground of disqualification. The fact that he was himself personally a creditor of the bank was sufficient to authorize his action in holding himself disqualified.
The petition, therefore, for writ of mandamus is denied, and the petition dismissed at the cost of the relator. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J!, concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1932)…ought in question. The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit and place the judiciary in a compromising attitude' which is had for the administration of justice.” Power vs. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1030, 113 So. 280; State vs. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1107, 113 So. 563; State ex rel. First American Bank and Trust Co. vs. Chillingworth, 95 Fla. 699, 116 So. 633; Suarez vs. State, supra; McGregor vs. Hammock, 101 Fla. 1170, 132 So. 815. It follows that' the writ of prohibition should issue from this Co…
-
State v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382 (Fla. 1930)…alify him to exercise jurisdiction therein as contemplated by the Act as above quoted. This Court has held that the interest which disqualifies a judge is a pecuniary one. Power v. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1030, 113 So. R. 280; State v. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1107, 113 So. R. 563; State ex rel. First American Bank and Trust Company et al. v. Chillingworth, 95 Fla. 699, 116 So. R. 633. The amount or status of the interest involved is immaterial. “Every litigant, including the State in criminal cases, is entit…
-
Bd. Pub. Instruction LaFayette Cnty. v. First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 111 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1932)…s a very high legal privilege in our system of jurisprudence; such special interest in order to disqualify must, however, be a pecuniary interest in the results of the action. Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla 209, 4 So. 525. See also State v. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1107. 113 So. 563; Anderson v. Broward, supra, Johnson v. Wakulla County, 28 Fla. 720, 9 So. 690. From all the conditions and circumstances of this case we cannot say that the trial court committed reversible error in granting the change of venue, nor t…
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
- Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1888)
- State v. Young, 31 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1893)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. S. H. Hart v. Call, 41 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1899)
- Ex parte Harris, 26 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1890)
- Trs. Internal Improvement Fund v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1864)
- Ochus v. Sheldon, 12 Fla. 138 (Fla. 1867)