STUART H. B. MAYES, ET AL.,
v.
M. A. SMITH, LIQUIDATOR
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 affirmed a chancellor's dismissal of a bill of complaint seeking to establish a preferred claim against a defunct bank's assets. The court held that the complainant was barred by estoppel from challenging the validity of certain bond investments that she had previously recognized as part of a trust estate in an earlier equity proceeding.
The court held that the complainant was estopped by her prior judgment in the equity proceeding from asserting that the bonds were never part of the estate. The prior decree, which accepted the complainant's own allegations that the bonds were estate assets, constituted an estoppel by judgment preventing her from contradicting that position in the present case.
“The Chancellor held that the facts disclosed by defendant's answer, showed a prior equity proceeding and adjudication which barred the present controversy, on the theory that the prior decree of the circuit court determining, as between the same parties and their privies, that the bonds in question were part of the trust estate, constituted an estoppel by judgment in this proceeding against all assertion in this case to the effect that such bonds had never been a part of the estate”
Establishes the estoppel by judgment doctrine that barred the complainants' claim based on prior litigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Citizens Bank and Trust Company, acting as trustee under the will of D. A. Dansby, invested trust estate funds in bonds of Citizens Mortgage & Bon…
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 Estoppel By Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The bill of complaint in this case sought to establish a preferred claim against the assets of the defunct Citizens Bank and Trust Company, based upon certain alleged unlawful investments of the bank, as trustee under the will of D. A. Dansby, deceased. The investment alleged to have been unlawfully made was of funds belonging to the estate of the deceased, in bonds of the Citizens Mortgage & Bond Company, a banking affiliate company.
The theory on which the complainants proceeded was that they were entitled to repudiate the investment by the bank. of a portion of its commingled fund, in which the estate moneys had been placed, by reason of which, treating the attempted investment in the mortgage bonds as being absolutely void, complainant would be entitled to claim the estate funds out of the moneys that passed into the liquidator’s hands at the time of the dosing of the bank.
The Chancellor held that the facts disclosed by defendant’s answer, showed a prior equity proceeding and- adjudication which barred the present controversy, on the theory that the prior decree of the circuit court determining, as between the same parties and their privies, that the bonds in question were part of the trust estate, constituted an estoppel by judgment in this proceeding against all assertion in this case to the effect that such bonds had never been a part of the estate, because, as complainant claimed, the at*606tempted investment by the bank in such bonds was absolutely void.
The answer sustained by the court set up the fact that the complainant, Myrtis Hill Dansby, had therefore filed in chancery a bill of complaint praying for the removal of Citizens Bank & Trust Company as trustee under the last will and testament of D. A. Dansby, to which petition was attached a schedule of the securities belonging to said estate, included in which schedule were the bonds in which the Citizens Bank and Trust Company had made the alleged void investment. ' In that petition the. bonds were claimed as assets of the estate, and the Court in granting the relief prayed for in the prior suit, had accepted complainant’s allegation that such bonds were a part of such estate, in consequence of which, so the answer averred, complainant in this suit was estopped to now claim to the contrary.
The ruling of the court below based on estoppel, should be affirmed on the authority of what was said by this Court on that subject in the recent case of Palm Beach Co. v. Palm Beach Estates, 110 Fla. 77, 148 Sou. Rep. S44, and cases therein cited.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.