HERBERT U. FEIBELMAN
v.
W. V. KNOTT, AS STATE TREASURER AND EX-OFFICIO INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, ET AL.
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 lower court's decree, relying on the legal principles established in a companion case, Kelly v. Knott. The affirmance was without prejudice to the appellant pursuing claims against the surety company's general assets in New Jersey or any surplus in the Florida trust fund.
Yes, the decree is affirmed on the authority of Kelly v. Knott. However, the affirmance is without prejudice to the appellant asserting claims for legal compensation against the surety company's general assets in New Jersey or any surplus remaining in the Florida trust fund after Florida claims and expenses are paid.
“It appearing to this Court that the appeal in this case is governed by the legal principles and conclusions stated in the opinion of this Court heretofore, rendered in the companion case of William H. Kelly, as Commissioner, v. W. V. Knott, as State Treasurer and ex-officio Insurance Commissioner, et al., decided on the 4th day of August, 1934, rehearing denied on the 3rd day of November, 1934, reported in 116 Fla. 362, 157 Sou. Rep. 22, it is now ordered and adjudged that the decree appealed from herein be and the same is hereby affirmed on the authority of the opinion filed in Kelly v. Knott, supra.”
Establishes that the current appeal is decided based on the precedent set in a companion case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case is a companion to Kelly v. Knott, involving the liquidation of the New Jersey Fidelity and Plate Glass Insurance Company. The appellant, Fei…
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.
It appearing to this Court that the appeal in this case is governed by the legal principles and conclusions stated in the opinion of this Court heretofore, ren*244•dered in the companion case of William H. Kelly, as Commissioner, v. W. V. Knott, as State Treasurer and ex-officio Insurance Commissioner, et al., decided on the 4th day of August, 1934, rehearing denied on the 3rd day of November, 1934, reported in 116 Fla. 362, 157 Sou. Rep. 22, it is now ordered and adjudged that the decree appealed from herein be and the same is hereby affirmed on the authority of the opinion filed in Kelly v. Knott, supra.
The affirmance of the decree appealed from, however, shall be without prejudice to the assertion by appellant of any claim for legal compensation which the appellant may have or conceive himself entitled to assert against the domiciliary administration of the insolvent surety company’s general assets as conducted in New Jersey, the state of said surety company’s domicile, or out of any surplus in the Florida trust fund that may remain after the payment of all Florida’s claims, together with the expenses of the Florida receivership proceedings had under Chapter 16248, Acts 1933, Laws of Florida, with reference to Florida assets of New Jersey Fidelity and Plate Glass Insurance Company.
Affirmed on condition stated.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kelly v. Knott, 116 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Cnty. of Sarasota, 117 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1934)