O. K. REAVES
v.
DOMESTIC FINANCE COMPANY, INC.
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 petition for rehearing and recall of mandate in a garnishment case. The court found no evidence that the garnishee was negligent in handling funds deposited in a bank that subsequently failed.
No, the garnishee should not be held liable because there was no evidence that the garnishee reasonably anticipated the bank's failure or was negligent in conserving the deposit.
“It appears that when the writ of garnishment was served and thereafter the money held by the garnishee belonging to the defendant in the action was at the instance of the debtor held on deposit in a bank with the money of such garnishee, and the service of the writ of garnishment and the judgment against the garnishee did not require him to anticipate a failure of the bank in which the money was deposited and to remove the deposit; and there is no showing in pais that the garnishee should reasonably have anticipated the failure of the bank and failed to secure the deposit or was otherwise negligent in conserving the deposit which included the amount held as garnishee in the hank.”
This quote outlines the core facts and the lack of negligence on the part of the garnishee.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA garnishee held money belonging to a defendant. The garnishee deposited this money into a bank account along with their own funds. The bank subsequen…
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 Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears that when the writ of garnishment was served and thereafter the money held by the garnishee belonging to the defendant in the action was at the instance of the debtor held on deposit in a bank with the money of such garnishee, and the service of the writ of garnishment and the judgment against the garnishee did not require him to anticipate a failure of the bank in which the money was deposited and to remove the deposit; and there is no showing in pais that the garnishee should reasonably have anticipated the failure of the bank and failed to secure the deposit or was otherwise negligent in conserving the deposit which included the amount held as garnishee in the hank. There was no lending of the funds by the garnishee as asserted for the respondent here.
Petition for recall of mandate and for rehearing denied.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Se. Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Transit Homes, Inc., 192 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…de of the $3,000.00. The position of Meros as trustee is 'that of a stakeholder, and his liability to the plaintiff can only he up to the amount he was holding. Reaves v. Domestic Finance Company, 1934, 113 Fla. 672, 152 So. 718; pet. for reh. den. 116 Fla. 22, 156 So. 235. The balance of the amount found by the chancellor to he due the plaintiff should Re borne by the corporate defendant alone and appropriate decree entered against it, plus interest. The question now recurs: whether or ■not, since the…