STATE
v.
ATLANTIC TITLE CO.

Fla. | 1935-01-07
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, and Buford, J. J,, concur.
118 Fla. 402 Florida Supreme Court (1935) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 158 So. 888
Cited by 18 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case where the state sought to enjoin a company from dealing in securities without registration. The court held that the company's transaction, involving city and district bonds, did not constitute a sale of securities as contemplated by the Florida Uniform Securities Act, leading to an affirmance of the lower court's decision.


Holding

No, the transaction does not constitute a sale of securities under the Florida Uniform Securities Act. The Act was intended to regulate speculative enterprises, not transactions involving municipal bonds.


Key Quotes

“We do not think that the transaction involved here is covered by Chapter 14899, Acts of 1931. This Act was designed to regulate the sale of securities or stocks in speculative enterprises such as imaginary gold mine, silver mines, and other fake mines, oil wells that have no existence in fact, and‘other visionary concerns, the most o.f which never exist beyond the blue print stage and are usually conceived as Fly-by-night ruses to “chisel” Barnum’s' one-a-minute flock out of its potential cash.”

Explains the intended scope of the Florida Uniform Securities Act and why the current transaction does not fall within it.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellee company exchanged city and district bonds for credits on the municipality's books. These bonds were then cancelled, and portions of the c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Terrell, J.

Terrell, J.

The bill of complaint herein sought to enjoin the appellee from dealing in securities as contemplated by Chapter 14899, Acts of 1931, Laws of Florida, because of its failure or refusal to register with the Florida Securities Commission and pay the license fee as required by said Act. Answer and motion to dismiss the bill were duly entered and on final hearing the motion to dismiss was granted. This appeal is from the final decree.

The record discloses that the appellee surrendered to the City of West Palm Beach certain bonds of the said city and one bond of the Lake Worth Inlet District and in return for said bonds and coupons of the City of West Palm (Beach received credits on the books of the municipality. The said bonds and coupons were immediately cancelled and portions of the credits received therefor were sold to taxpayers for the payment of their taxes.

The sole question we are called on to solve is whether or not such a transaction constitutes a sale of securities as contemplated by Chapter 14899, Acts of 1931, better known as the Florida Uniform Securities Act.

In the amended answer to the bill of complaint it is contended that the provision in Chapter 14899, Acts of 1931, requiring dealers in securities thereunder to post a bond before registration is unconstitutional but this contention was settled adversely to appellee in State, ex rel. Municipal Bond and Investment Company, Inc., v. Knott, et al., 114 Fla. 120, 154 So. 143.

It is further contended that the judgment below should be *404affirmed because the final decree shows on its face that it was based on evidence which was not brought up for the consideration of this Court.

The rule is' well settled that when a final decree of the Chancellor is based on evidence not brought up for review this Court will indulge the presumption that the decree below was correct and affirm the judgment. Stratton v. Andrews, 90 Fla. 376, 105 So. 842; Trotman v. Couture, 98 Fla. 889, 124 So. 443. In the case at bar there is no dispute about the essential facts and there is ample in the record to warrant an adjudication of the main question presented which we think must result in an affirmance.

We do not think that the transaction involved here is covered by Chapter 14899, Acts of 1931. This Act was designed to regulate the sale of securities or stocks in speculative enterprises such as imaginary gold mine, silver mines, and other fake mines, oil wells that have no existence in fact, and‘other visionary concerns, the most o.f which never exist beyond the blue print stage and are usually conceived as Fly-by-night ruses to “chisel” Barnum’s' one-a-minute flock out of its potential cash. Aside from the zeal of a benevolent state to play the roll of guardian to this class there is no basis for the Act.

Chapter 14899 specifically excepts from its' provisions any securities guaranteed by the United States or any territory or insular possession 'thereof, the District of Columbia, or any state of the United States political division or agency thereof. If the securities brought in question are not comprehended within this exemption, they are clearly not embraced within the terms or spirit of the Act.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, and Buford, J. J,, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Star Fruit Co. v. Canady, 159 Fla. 488 (Fla. 1947)
    …at the court below committed error on some material point by which justice has miscarried and a wrong has been perpetrated on one of the parties. Firestone Auto Supply Service Stores v. Bullard, 141 Fla. 282, 192 So. 865; State v. Atlantic Tile Co., 118 Fla. 402, 158 So. 888. Affirmed. THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.…
  • Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
    …cord-on-appeal, the appellate court will indulge the presumption that the finding is correct. Stratton v. Andrews, Fla. 1925, 90 Fla. 375, 105 So. 842; Troutman v. Couture, Fla. 1929, 98 Fla. 889, 124 So. 443; State v. Atlantic Title Co., Fla. 1935, 118 Fla. 402, 158 So. 888. It has further been held that, in the absence of a transcript of the evidence, it must be assumed from an order granting a motion for a directed verdict that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury. Gulf Coast Titl…
  • State v. Knott, 119 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1935)
    …in the court below. The bond requirement of the law has been heretofore sustained by this Court as being valid per se. State, ex rel. Municipal Bond & Investment Co. v. Knott, 114 Fla. 120, 154 Sou. Rep. 143. See also: State v. Atlantic Title Co., 118 Fla. 402, 158 Sou. Rep. 888. So the proposition to be decided in this case is the validity of the classifications made in the regulatory statute for the purpose of removing from the scope of the Act’s operation those securities, and [*526] dealers in same, w…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw